Court Opinion

ID: 9746641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:31:03.575934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:15.657536
License: Public Domain

WICKERSHAM, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from the majority decision in this case to remand with direction to the lower court to entertain appellant’s motion for modification of sentence nunc pro tunc.
Rule 1410 of Pa.R.Crim.P. requires a defendant to file a motion to modify sentence in writing within ten (10) days after imposition of sentence. The sentencing judge should call this rule to the attention of the defendant at the same time of sentencing.1 Such was not done in the present case and Judge Tredinnick dismissed defendant’s petition for modification of sentence because it was filed more than ten (10) days after sentence.
The point, however, which the majority of this panel overlooked, is the fact that Judge Tredinnick in fact gave full consideration to defendant’s petition for modification of *97sentence, disposed of it on its merits, and discussed it fully in his Opinion of June 27, 1979.2
The remand under these circumstances is pure folly; a waste of judicial manpower and one of the reasons we have almost 5000 unresolved cases. After the present remand, the appeal will necessarily come back on the unresolved issues and take the time of the other appellate court judges once again.

. The reason given by Judge Tredinnick for considering the motion of defendant on its merits, although filed late, was to avoid a future P.C.H.A. issue of alleged ineffectiveness of counsel.

. Pa.R.Crim.P. 1405(c)(3).