417 A.2d 722 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1980
Appellant, Willie Lee Harper, was convicted of receiving stolen goods
The proper procedure in such instances is for .the judge at the PCHA level to make a determination on the ineffectiveness of counsel issue and then reach the underlying merits of the other issues raised, if necessary. See 19 P.S. §§ 1180-9, 1180-10; Commonwealth v. Roundtree, 469 Pa. 241, 364 A.2d 1359 (1976). The aggrieved party then takes an appeal from that adjudication. When the PCHA court circumvents this process and merely grants an appeal nunc pro tunc, our court has quashed the appeal. See Commonwealth v. Butler, 261 Pa.Super. 486, 395 A.2d 1015 (1978); Commonwealth v. Valezquez, 244 Pa.Super. 327, 368 A.2d 745 (1976). Hence the present appeal is quashed without prejudice to any rights appellant may have under the PCHA, and the case is remanded to the post-verdict court for an adjudication of the issues raised in the PCHA petition.
Appeal quashed and case remanded.
. Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925 (1973).
. Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. §§ 1180-1 et seq. (Supp. 1979-80), repealed by § 2(a) Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, No. 53, generally effective June 27, 1978, to take effect two years after effective date.