Court Opinion

ID: 9646835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:13:02.546957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:42.566816
License: Public Domain

*404BROSKY, Judge,
dissenting:
I cannot join in the majority opinion based upon the decision of our Supreme Court in Wiegand v. Wiegand, 461 Pa. 482, 337 A.2d 256 (1975), holding that this court cannot sua sponte address any issue not raised in the trial court. The issue here addressed by the majority — the procedural irregularity of adjudication of guilt and simultaneous pronouncement of sentence — has not been properly preserved for our review because it was not raised below and briefed to this Court. “Sua sponte consideration of issues deprives counsel of the opportunity to brief and argue the issues and the court of the benefit of counsel’s advocacy.” Id., 461 Pa. at 485, 337 A.2d at 57.
My examination of the record discloses properly preserved issues which appellant presents to our Court for review. These are: (1) whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence;1 and (2) whether the court erred in not allowing the defense to enter a deposition taken previous to trial. In my view, these issues should be addressed on the merits.
For the above reasons, I dissent.

. Appellant couches his first issue in boilerplate style on appeal; however, the allegations in his post-verdict motion meet the specificity threshold of our decision in Commonwealth v. Holmes, 315 Pa.Super. 256, 461 A.2d 1268 (1983).