Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. William C. ERHART, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1977-06-29
Citations: 248 Pa. Super. 481
Docket Number: No. 1734
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. William C. ERHART, Appellant.
Judges: Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 248
Pages: 481–496

Head Matter:
375 A.2d 342
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. William C. ERHART, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted Dec. 16, 1975.
Decided June 29, 1977.
Richard W. Webb, Assistant Public Defender, Jim Thorpe, for appellant.
Murray Mackson, Palmerton, for appellee.
Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.

Opinion:
VAN der VOORT, Judge:
The appellant, William C. Erhart, was charged with forgery and receiving stolen goods. Prior to trial, he moved for a dismissal of all charges, alleging a violation of Rule 1100 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. He claimed he had not been brought to trial within the required 180 day period mandated by the Rule. The Commonwealth answered the motion, claiming that appellant could not be located after the complaint was filed and thus to be deemed "unavailable" within the meaning of Rule 1100.
The lower court denied the appellant's dismissal motion. At trial on April 14, 1975, Erhart was convicted of both forgery and receiving stolen goods charges. Following conviction, the appellant's attorney made an oral motion for a new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment. He was asked by the trial judge if he was going to file a motion for a new trial. To this inquiry counsel replied, "I think it will be more in the nature of a motion for arrest of judgment. I don't believe the defendant should come to trial in the first place, much less have a second trial". The oral motion in arrest of judgment was argued then and there (counsel again arguing the Rule 1100 issue) and was denied by the court. No written post-trial motions for either a new trial or in arrest of judgment were ever filed.
The trial and post-trial motions in this case followed the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, N. 1, 331 A.2d 213, N. 1 (filed January 27, 1975), and we cannot therefore consider claims not raised in written post-trial motions. See Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1123(a); Commonwealth v. Bailey, 463 Pa. 354, 344 A.2d 869 (1975). In view of the non-compliance by appellant with the requirements of Rule 1123 and the recent holdings of our Supreme Court, we cannot consider the Rule 1100 issue to have been adequately preserved for appellate review.
Affirmed.
HOFFMAN, J., files a concurring opinion in which CER-CONE and SPAETH, JJ., join.
PRICE, J., files a concurring opinion in which JACOBS, J., joins.
SPAETH, J., files a concurring opinion.