# Commonwealth v. Sullens

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 19, 1992 · 533 Pa. 99

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747272

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Dominick W. SULLENS, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 19, 1992
- **Citations:** 533 Pa. 99; 619 A.2d 1349; 1992 Pa. LEXIS 557
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Papadakos
- **Judges:** Gappy, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy
- **Cited by:** 52 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747272

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a contrary rule would allow an accused at large upon bail to immobilize the commencement of trial and frustrate an overtaxed judicial system until the trial date meets with her pleasure and convenience
- holding that where a defendant failed to appear at trial, he waived the right to be present because there was no question that defendant knew the date of the proceeding
- holding that it was proper for trial to commence in absentia when the defendant failed to appear on the day his trial was scheduled to begin
- holding that “when a defendant is absent without cause at the time his trial is scheduled to begin, he may be tried in absentia”
- holding that it was proper for trial to commence where appellant failed to appear on the day his trial was scheduled to begin

## Opinion text

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
I join with the majority, but write separately to emphasize that no harm is done to a defendant whose case is heard in his absence because good cause has not been shown to the trial judge for the absence when, in fact, good cause exists for the absence. At sentencing, when the defendant appears, if he can establish that he had good cause for his absence at trial, he would be entitled to a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747272. Public record. Not legal advice.