Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judge BOWES files a dissenting opinion.' 1 . The parties appeal from the trial court’s order entered April 18, 2012, disposing of their cross post-trial motions, wherein the trial court also directed the Prothonotary to enter judgment. However, the certified record contains no indication that the prothono-tary complied. We note an appeal generally lies from judgments entered following the disposition of post-trial motions. Mackall v. Fleegle, 801 A.2d 577, 580-581 (Pa.Super.2002). However, in the interests of justice and to promote judicial economy an appellate court may "regard as done that which ought to have been done” and proceed in the matter. See McCormick v. Ne. Bank of Pa., 522 Pa. 251, 561 A.2d 328, 330 n. 1 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Fanning v. Davne, 795 A.2d 388, 392 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when a posttrial motion has been deemed denied the only appealable matter is the original order and that any h previously filed notice of appeal must be amended to appeal from the deemeddenied motion (B) holding that the court of appeals abused its discretion by dismissing the defendants appeal as untimely because as relevant here it would be in the interest of judicial economy to avoid a crim p 85c claim for ineffective assistance of counsel (C) holding in summary judgment context that appellate court may consider other grounds that the movant preserved for review and trial court did not rule on in the interest of judicial economy (D) holding that although an order dismissing appellants motion for posttrial relief was not reduced to judgment in the interests of judicial economy the supreme court could regard as done that which ought to have been done and proceed with the appeal (E) holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment
Output (English): holding that the court of appeals abused its discretion by dismissing the defendants appeal as untimely because as relevant here it would be in the interest of judicial economy to avoid a crim p 85c claim for ineffective assistance of counsel