Court Opinion

ID: 9759826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:28:51.766095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:05.059972
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
dissenting:
Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123(b) and (c) are comparative newcomers as objects of judicial interpretation. Unfortunately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not yet given us a definitive view on the complex waiver problems the rule has thus far engendered. Worse still, I foresee divers problems yet unencountered which will continue to plague the courts under this rule.
I agree with the majority that, on the instant facts, there was no enforceable waiver of post-trial motions. My agreement, however, is based solely on the failure to the trial court to advise the defendant, pursuant to Rule 1123(c), that only those issues contained in post-trial motions could be raised on appeal. See Commonwealth v. William C. Erhart, 237 Pa.Super. 706, 352 A.2d 63 (Filed Dec. 22, 1975) (concurring opinion by Price, J.). The mandate of the rule is clear in this respect, and no warning of requisite clarity appears on the record. This case must be remanded for compliance with Rule 1123(c) and the filing of written post-trial motions nunc pro tunc.
The majority reads Rule 1123(b) as requiring the trial court to solicit the defendant’s on-record consent to oral post-trial motions in all cases where an intent to make such motions is indicated. My explicit disagreement with this view is detailed in my concurring opinions in Commonwealth v. Erhart, supra and Commonwealth v. Kinsey, Pa. Superior Ct., 375 A.2d 727 (1977). I must therefore dissent specifically to the majority position in this respect.
*479Because of my proposed disposition I see no need to speculate either on new counsel’s course of action upon remand or upon the content of post-trial motions when filed.
I would vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for proper post-trial procedure.
JACOBS and VAN der VOORT, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.