Court Opinion

ID: 9643133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:20:20.581507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:57.734153
License: Public Domain

CIRILLO, Judge,
dissenting:
The majority remands this case today because it is unable to determine from the transmitted record whether the same judge sentenced both appellant and his co-defendants. In my view a remand in these circumstances is wholly unnecessary and contrary to our concerns for judicial economy. We can easily and reliably ascertain whether the same judge presided over the sentencing of the several co-defendants, without needing to resort to a remand.
In Pennsylvania we function under a unified judicial system, of which the Superior Court and all common pleas *19courts are a part. Pa. Const., Art. 5, § 1; 42 Pa.C.S. § 301. “It is the policy of the unified judicial system to bring each pending matter to a final conclusion as promptly as possible consistent with the character of the matter and the resources of the system.” Pa.RJ.A. 1901. “One of the purposes of a unified court is, of course, to simplify procedure and remove archaism from the judicial system.” Gorden v. Cutler, 324 Pa.Super. 35, 43, 471 A.2d 449, 453 (1983). I fault the majority for failing to utilize our unified judicial system in an economical fashion.
I recognize the long settled rule that an appellate court may not consider matters outside the record on appeal. Commonwealth v. Young, 456 Pa. 102, 317 A.2d 258 (1974). Nevertheless, I respectfully submit that the identity of the presiding judge at the time of sentencing is a matter of record which we may take notice of and consider, whether it is included in the transmitted record or not.
The record keeping practices of our trial courts are controlled by statute and supervised by our Supreme Court, and their records are eminently reliable. 42 Pa.C.S. 4301;1 Pa.R.J.A. 505(11). By arrangement of the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, certain uniform docketing procedures have been established throughout the common pleas court system in this Commonwealth. Particularly noteworthy is the uniform practice of recording the name of the sentencing judge.2 If we are to take the concept of a unified judiciary seriously, we should not hesitate to utilize these fine records in order to learn certain administrative facts which may not appear in the record transmitted for appeal.
*20In this case, we need only determine whether the same judge or different judges presided over the sentencing of appellant and his co-defendants. Although the identity of the judge who sentenced appellant’s co-defendants is not found in the transmitted record, we may learn this information through simple inquiry to the clerk of the court of common pleas.
In the interest of justice and judicial economy, I see no cause to remand this case.3 We now have a modern, fully integrated court system. There is no compelling reason that we should not, in this limited situation, make full use of the resources available to us through this system — and recognize certain administrative records of our co-constituent courts as if they were our own.
Since I find appellant’s remaining claim to be without merit, I would affirm judgment of sentence.

. 42 Pa.C.S. 4301 pertains to the "Establishment and maintenance of judicial records.” This section provides that the docketing procedures of all courts of this Commonwealth “shall be uniform to the maximum extent practicable."

. Pursuant to directives issued by the Court Administrator, all counties except Philadelphia complete and submit a docket transcript form on all criminal cases. This form requires identification of the judge who presided at the time of sentencing. Philadelphia County does not submit the docket transcript form, however, the clerk of quarter *20sessions routinely enters the pertinent information in its automated docket (which is then accessed by the Court Administrator).

. Through inquiry I have learned that appellant and his co-defendants were tried separately and sentenced by different judges. Disparity of sentences among co-defendants in such circumstances need not be explained by a sentencing judge. Commonwealth v. Kalson, 301 Pa.Super. 31, 446 A.2d 1320 (1982).