Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania Officer Grabenstein and Officer Nicholson v. David H. PATTERSON, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1982-04-30
Citations: 299 Pa. Super. 146
Docket Number: Appeal No. 870
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania Officer Grabenstein and Officer Nicholson v. David H. PATTERSON, Appellant.
Judges: Before SPAETH, JOHNSON and HOFFMAN, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 299
Pages: 146–147

Head Matter:
445 A.2d 191
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania Officer Grabenstein and Officer Nicholson v. David H. PATTERSON, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued March 16, 1982.
Filed April 30, 1982.
David Harry Patterson, appellant, in pro. per.
Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Before SPAETH, JOHNSON and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
On March 12, 1981, appellant was adjudicated guilty of a summary offense after a trial de novo in a court of common pleas. He filed no post-trial motions before taking this appeal. In Commonwealth v. Koch, 288 Pa. Superior Ct. 290, 431 A.2d 1052 (1981), we held that post-trial motions are a prerequisite to preserve issues for appellate review following such a trial de novo. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123. However, when no post-trial motions were filed and the adjudication occurred before July 1, 1981, we have remanded to allow appellant to file post-trial motions nunc pro tunc. E.g., Commonwealth v. Cruice, 297 Pa. Superior Ct. 1, 442 A.2d 1183 (1982); Commonwealth v. McNelis, 297 Pa. Superior Ct. 4, 442 A.2d 1184 (1982). Because appellant did not file post-trial motions but was convicted before July 1, 1981, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand to allow him to file post-trial motions nunc pro tunc. Following the lower court's ultimate disposition of those motions and entry of a final order, either party aggrieved may appeal as allowed by law.
So ordered.