Court Opinion

ID: 9541681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:27:49.17348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:28.853786
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Spaeth, J.:
I join in Judge Hoffman's opinion because I agree that defense counsel should have noted an objection if he had one. The review of sentences is peculiarly difficult, and counsel have a comparable responsibility to make a complete record. See Commonwealth v. Shoemaker, 226 Pa. Superior Ct. 203, 313 A. 2d 342 (1973); and cf. Commonwealth v. Martin, 226 Pa. Superior Ct. 181, 313 A. 2d 264 (1973). I file this separate *199opinion because 1 regard, the procedure adopted in this case to be most undesirable. There was no showing of “necessity,” much less of “imperative necessity,” for appellant to be sentenced by a judge different from the trial judge. If Philadelphia is to continue with the practice of having criminal cases tried by judges from other counties, a rule should be adopted, either locally or by the Supreme Court, requiring that the record reflect the circumstances constituting the imperative necessity of proceeding without the trial judge. The rule should also require such colloquy as will ensure that the defendant understands the situation, and, if there is no imperative necessity, agrees to be sentenced by other than the trial judge.