Court Opinion

ID: 9760137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:41:00.089611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:20:35.130334
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
dissenting:
Appellant has filed a petition for remand, claiming after-discovered evidence, and the Commonwealth has joined in the petition. With its opinion filed today the majority has filed an order denying the petition for remand, without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a second petition for post-conviction relief “containing claims that have not been waived by failure to raise them in his first PCHA petition.” I should instead grant the petition for remand, with a provision in the order of remand that should appellant be denied relief on his after-discovered evidence claims, he could on appeal from that denial renew the arguments that he has made on this appeal. See Commonwealth v. Santiago, 306 Pa.Super. 176, 452 A.2d 272 (1982) (remanded 11/5/82).
The case should be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.