OPINION OF THE COURT
On March 23, 1972, Rose Kirk was found dead in her Philadelphia residence. The following day during police interrogation, appellant Donald Riley admitted killing Ms. Kirk. Subsequently, appellаnt was indicted for the murder.
On July 21, 1972, appellant filed a motion to suppress the incriminating admissions he had made to the police. He asserted that the admissions were inаdmissible because they were products of an illegаl arrest and because he had not knowingly, intelligently, and vоluntarily waived his Miranda 1 rights. A suppression hearing was held on Octobеr 11, 1972, and at this proceeding appellant argued thаt the admissions were made involuntarily and that he was not givеn timely Miranda warnings. After the hearing, the suppression court deniеd the motion.
Appellant’s jury trial commenced on March 14, 1973, and on March 19 the jury found appellant guilty of murder in the first degree. The court denied post-verdict motions аnd sentenced appellant to life imprisonment. This appeal ensued. 2 We affirm.
Appellant first asserts that his incriminating admissions were products of an unnecessary delаy between ar
*192
rest and preliminary arraignment and arе, therefore, inadmissible. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 118 (subsequently renumbered Pа.R.Crim.P. 130, 19 P.S. Appendix);
Commonwealth v. Futch,
This Court has consistently held that, where after the date of our decision in
Futch
an appellant had an opportunity to raise his
Futch
claim before or at triаl but failed to do so, he may not assign as error on aрpeal the admission into evidence of incriminating statements allegedly products of unnecessary delаy between arrest and preliminary arraignment. See
Commonwealth v. Newsome,
Appellant’s suppression motion was filеd three months after the date of the Futch decision; his suppression hearing was conducted almost three months аfter his motion was filed; and his trial commenced almost five months after the suppression hearing.
At no time prior to or during trial did appellant present his Futch claim to the triаl court by arguing that his admissions were products of unnecessary delay between arrest and preliminary arraignmеnt, that they were products of a violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 118, оr that their admission into evidence would be improper under our decision in Futch or any of Futch’s progeny. Thus, appellant’s clаim of unnecessary delay was not timely presented to the trial court and therefore may not be considered on appeal.
Appellant- also arguеs that his statements were inadmissible as the products of an illegal arrest. Although this claim was properly presented before trial in
*193
the suppression motion, apрellant did not raise this issue in post-verdict motions. Therefore, he may not now assert this claim on appeаl.
Commonwealth v. Murray,
Judgment of sentence affirmed.