Sills v. State

The fugitive dismissal rule grants appellate courts the authority to dismiss an appeal made by a defendant who fled the court’s jurisdiction. State v. Moss, 352 OR 46, 50-51 (2012).

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his post-conviction relief petition after he fled the state for six years between the trial and sentencing. Petitioner assigned error to the lower court’s reliance on the fugitive dismissal rule. Petitioner argued that the fugitive dismissal rule should not be extended to post-conviction cases and in the alternative dismissal was not justified in this case. In response, State argued that the Court should adopt the broader "former fugitive dismissal rule" and extend it to include post-conviction petitions made by petitioners who were fugitives while their criminal cases were pending. The fugitive dismissal rule grants appellate courts the authority to dismiss an appeal made by a defendant who fled the court’s jurisdiction. State v. Moss, 352 OR 46, 50-51 (2012). The Court agreed with Petitioner's alternative argument and reasoned that the fugitive dismissal rule has historically been applied to direct appeals. Subsequently, any decision from an appeal could be unenforceable if the defendant is a fugitive. The Court acknowledged that there might be instances where dismissal of an appeal would be warranted due to its prejudice on future proceedings, but the Court held that the prejudice must have “the kind of connection” that would justice dismissal. The Court held that “the kind of connection” did not exist in this case. Reversed and remanded.