*1 on which the lower so, of the husband only petition 14, 1976,and the court can act is the dated October petition brief) 17 of her the October wife says (page of the son. support makes no reference petition made his order of March Mellenberg Obviously, Judge in the brief that on this the order now before us into his jurisdiction brought had parties wife and the son. for both the problems support directions In event we reverse and reinstated; wife be (a) the order support increase in the amount wife for an (b) the petition court) lower be (considered moot support of; reviewed and disposed re-examined, and order for of the son be (c) support opin- with this an order made consistent appropriate ion. or
WIEAND, J., did not in the consideration participate decision in this case. Pennsylvania VASQUEZ, Appellant.
David James Court of *2 for Defender, appel- Bertani, Greensburg, Public Dante G. lant. Attorney, Lewis, Jr., Assistant District
Morrison F. Commonwealth, appellee. for Greensburg, MONTGOMERY,JJ. PRICE, HESTER, and Before MONTGOMERY,Judge: June, trial jury following was convicted
Appellant Substance, Possession of a Controlled Possession Controlled of a Sub- Deliver, Delivery and with Intent and Drug, Device Substance stance under Controlled August He was thereafter sentenced Cosmetic Act.1 than for not less imprisonment to concurrent terms was represented than 10 years. Appellant five nor more sentencing, On the same private trial counsel. thereafter in Forma Pauperis filed this appeal him. to represent was appointed office defender’s public ap alleged to file failure counsel’s peal citing to stipulate and failure to obtain witness failure *3 is repre laboratory reports. Since object to or to who repre other than counsel sented appeal is level, the issue of him at the trial sented Com appeal. the first time direct raised for 1291 13, 374 A.2d Burch, Pa.Super. 248 monwealth (1977). mo to not file the decision
Although the ineffectiveness,2 examination of se tions is not per in to file was counsel’s failure find that we transcript, rather than procedure of ignorance fact based on sheer appealable presented record on his that the part over a month Following sentencing appellant, the issues. following: counsel stated and one-half after pending ask bond be continued We that the MR. KRONZ: of the has been know any appeal I don’t THE COURT: filed. amended; 14, 1972, P.S. 64 13 as 35 § P.L. No.
1. Act 1976-77). seq. (Supp. et 780-101 § failing file baseless will not be held to be ineffective Counsel Hubbard, 372 687 472 Pa. A.2d claims. See Commonwealth (1977). a new trial which I to the present MR. KRONZ: For now, but the back record to the Public Defender’s Court filed with the Court. appropriately case for Mr. Vasquez has been and has prepared for this trial transcript have been filed with the of Court’s. So we Clerk those in things just hopes waited until now after matter. disposition delaying MR. I think the motion for arrest of judgment LEWIS: filed within some of the something days was No, MR. it would be a motion for new trial. KRONZ: This the final determination. being I have to it to the appeal MR. think they LEWIS: Court. pending MR. KRONZ: We ask that the bond be continued time period. within the prescribed THE I am that the actor be incarcerat- directing COURT: ed forthwith. New but counsel intended to file a Motion for a Trial
Clearly within a obligation to do so completely ignorant trial as mandated Pa.R.Crim.P. required period following Rule 1123.3 We find counsel’s lack of awareness instance to ineffectiveness. Commonwealth v. represent (1975). However, A.2d 440 Pa. rather Twiggs, errors, time, we will instead present than review trial at the for the counsel will have a full remand, oppor- On present appellate transcript, present to examine the trial tunity *4 lower court whatever he deems before necessary issues appeal.4 them for the first raising (7) day period appellant’s 3. At the time of a seven effect (10) period did not become under then Rule 1123. The ten However, amending has effective until 1977. of the rule bearing on the issues raised note, though by appellant important 4. It is also not raised in his brief, upon apparent examination of the record it is that the trial rights respect judge failed to advise the filing the time for and the waiver consequences required as Rule 1123. The remand of not case re- reversed and the of sentence The judgment manded for statement. files
PRICE, dissenting J. a PRICE, Judge, dissenting: of ineffec- clear that find the record so
I do not I would it. be declared counsel can tive assistance of West- of Common Pleas the Court remand to therefore question. on the hearing County moreland Appellant, Pennsylvania, Alfred F. Crawford. Dale KUNKEL Superior Court Nov. Aug. problem as See Commonwealth well.
will serve to alleviate McCuster,-Pa.-,-A.2d-(1977).