Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Willis HEEMAN, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1978-11-03
Citations: 260 Pa. Super. 79
Docket Number: No. 1310
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Willis HEEMAN, Appellant.
Judges: Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 260
Pages: 79–82

Head Matter:
393 A.2d 1021
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Willis HEEMAN, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted Sept. 12, 1977.
Decided Nov. 3, 1978.
Bruce S. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, Hazleton, for appellant.
Patrick J. Toole, Jr., District Attorney, Wilkes-Barre, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.

Opinion:
PRICE, Judge:
Appellant pleaded guilty to charges of corruption of a minor and criminal conspiracy on December 2, 1976. Following sentencing, appellant filed a direct appeal to this court challenging the voluntariness of his plea and the adequacy of the colloquy.
Appellant entered his guilty plea well after our decision in Commonwealth v. Roberts, 237 Pa.Super. 336, 352 A.2d 140 (1975). Appellant failed, however, to comport with the Roberts mandate that prior to attacking a guilty plea on appeal, one must petition the lower court for permission to withdraw the plea. Appellant has asserted no valid explanation for his failure to comply with Roberts; the issue of the plea's validity is thus waived. Commonwealth v. George Allen Hughes, 257 Pa.Super. 258, 390 A.2d 811 (1978).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
SPAETH, J., files a dissenting opinion in which CER-CONE, J., joins.
WATKINS, former President Judge, and HOFFMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3125.
. 18 Pa.C.S. § 903.
. The dissent notes surprise at our failure to cite other cases. The failure is intentional, as admittedly there is uncertainty and conflict reflected by the cases in this area. The cited case above is the latest holding by this court on the subject.