This appeal arises from the order of the Fayette County Court of Common Pleаs denying relief on appellant’s petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Hearing Act. 1 Appellant claims that he received ineffective representation by trial counsel, and that inculpatory statements were improperly admitted into evidence. We are unable to pass upon appellant’s сlaims, however, because of the inadequacy of the record. Therefоre, we remand the case for the filing of a full opinion.
The pertinent facts аre as follows. In February, 1976, appellant was arrested and charged with theft by unlawful tаking. 2 Following the denial of his application to suppress oral and written inculрatory statements, he was found guilty by a jury on June 16, 1976. Appellant filed a motion for a nеw trial and in arrest of judgment containing only boilerplate reasons as grounds for rеlief. The motion was denied *410 and on March 29, 1978, appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one to two years. 3 Appellant subsequently petitiоned for post conviction relief, at which time new counsel was appоinted to raise a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel. A hearing was held on December 19, 1978, and shortly thereafter, appellant’s claim for relief was dеnied. There have been no opinions filed throughout this adjudication.
We are unаble to render a considered opinion on this appeal without having the benefit of an opinion from the post conviction hearing court. The court’s findings аre necessary for our determination whether “the particular course сhosen by counsel had some reasonable basis designed to effectuatе his client’s interest.”
Commonwealth v. Musi,
“Our rules are designed to administer the appellate process in the fairest and most efficient manner possible.”
Matter of Harrison Square, Inc.,
Remanded for disposition consistent with this opinion.
Notes
. 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq.
. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921.
. The sentence was not to commence until the expiration of a sentence appellant was currently serving on another conviction.
. Section 1180—4(b) of the Post Conviction Hearing Act provides as follows:
§ 1180—4. When an issue is finally litigated or waived
(b) For the purposes of this act, an issue is waived if:
(1) The petitioner knowingly and understandingly failed to raise it and it could have been raised before the trial, at the trial, on appeal, in a habeas corpus proceeding or any other proceeding actually conducted, or in a priоr proceeding actually initiated under this act; and
(2) The petitioner is unable tо prove the existence of extraordinary circumstances to justify his failure tо raise the issue.
(c) There is a rebuttable presumption that a failure to aрpeal a ruling or to raise an issue is a knowing and understanding failure.
19 P.S. § 1180-4. Thus, appellаnt is deemed to have waived his claims unless he was barred from raising them by extraordinary circumstances.
. See 1925(a) Pa.R.A.P. which reads in full:
Rule 1925. Opinion in Support of Order
(a) General rule. Upon receipt of the notice оf appeal the judge who entered the order appealed from, if thе reasons for the order do not already appear of record, shall forthwith file of record at least a brief statement, in the form of an opinion, оf the reasons for the order, or for the rulings or other matters complained оf, or shall specify in writing the place in the record where such reasons may be found.