Commonwealth v. Fountain

Summary

Justice Wecht dissents from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss as improvidently granted an appeal concerning whether repeated dilatory and disruptive conduct may constitute an ongoing forfeiture of the right to counsel. The dissent argues that the Court should address this issue of first impression and clarify the application of ongoing waiver and forfeiture doctrines.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Superior Court erred by failing to treat forfeiture of counsel as a continuing pattern of behavior akin to the ongoing-waiver rule where there was no substantial change in circumstances and the defendant repeatedly exhibited dilatory conduct.
2. Whether Pennsylvania law should recognize or clarify an ongoing-forfeiture-of-counsel doctrine extending the ongoing-waiver doctrine to repeated dilatory and disruptive conduct.

Disposition

dismissed