Title: Com. v. Hicks

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

328 Pa. Superior Ct. 233 (1984) 476 A.2d 978 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Dwayne Keith HICKS a/k/a Dwayne Hicks, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted February 27, 1984. Filed June 1, 1984. *234 Paulette J. Balogh, Assistant Public Defender, Pittsburgh, for appellant. Dara A. DeCourcy, Assistant District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee. Before CAVANAUGH, WICKERSHAM and HOFFMAN, JJ. PER CURIAM: Appellant Dwayne Hicks was found guilty in a jury trial on June 29, 1981 of first degree murder, robbery, and criminal conspiracy and, on March 16, 1982 was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder charge, plus ten to twenty years for the robbery conviction and five to ten years for the criminal conspiracy conviction, consecutive to the life term. The facts of this case are accurately summarized as follows: Brief for Appellee at 6-7. In this direct appeal from judgment of sentence, appellant raises the following issues: Brief for Appellant at 3. This case has been submitted to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania for decision and, accordingly, we will not have the benefit of oral argument. Of more concern however is the fact that we do not have any opinion from the trial court, the Honorable Samuel Strauss. We do not have, therefore, the benefit of Judge Strauss's discussion of the issues presented in the post trial motions. We will accordingly, and do hereby remand this case to the trial court with directions that an opinion be promptly prepared and returned to us pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1925, Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.[1] Jurisdiction is not relinquished. [1] We are of course aware, from the record, that Judge Strauss had issued an order to the Office of the Public Defender of Allegheny County to file a brief and a concise statement of the matters complained of on appeal, by Order of April 20, 1982. Judge Strauss had directed that such response be made by April 27, 1982 and, in fact, it was May 10, 1982 when the concise statement was filed. Be that as it may, we are handicapped in reviewing the record in this case by not having the benefit of Judge Strauss's thinking and analysis on the various issues presented for our consideration.