Court Opinion

ID: 9641584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:35:26.783683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:48.318873
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
In Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975), this Court held:
“The practice in some judicial districts of ignoring the requirements of Rule 1123(a) [specifying written post-verdict motions] is condemned. Henceforth, issues not presented in compliance with the rule will not be considered by our trial and appellate courts.”
Id., 460 Pa. at 33, 331 A.2d at 214. In Commonwealth v. Roach, All Pa. 379, 380, 383 A.2d 1257, 1258 (1978) (Concurring Opinion by Roberts, J.), I stated that Blair should be given effect beginning with its publication in the Atlantic Second, March 1, 1975. See also, Commonwealth v. Hitson, *554482 Pa. 404, 393 A.2d 1169 (1978) (Concurring Opinion by Roberts, J., joined by Nix, J.). Appellant filed only boilerplate post-verdict motions after Blair’s publication in Atlantic Second. None of the issues the majority now addresses therefore were properly preserved for appellate review. I would affirm the judgment of sentence.