No. 1005 October Term, 1979, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division, at No. 71 of 1977
Thomas G. Klingensmith, Assistant Public Defender, Lancaster, for appellant.
Ronald L. Buckwalter, District Attorney, Lancaster, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Brosky, Wickersham and Roberts, JJ.*fn* Wickersham, J., files a dissenting opinion.
[ 280 Pa. Super. Page 482]
On March 22, 1977, appellant, Robert Lee Weaver, was convicted by a jury of robbery. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five to ten years.*fn1 This appeal followed.
[ 280 Pa. Super. Page 483]
Appellant's sole contention is that the sentence imposed was so manifestly excessive as to constitute an abuse of discretion by the sentencing court.
It is, of course, well settled that the sentencing judge is granted broad discretion in determining an appropriate sentence. See Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118, 351 A.2d 650 (1976). However, in order that we may review the propriety of a sentence where, as instantly, one alleges an abuse of that discretion, a sentencing court is required to place upon the record its reasons for the sentence. Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977); Pa.R.Crim.P. 1405(b).*fn2
Here, neither the recorded transcript of the sentencing nor the court's opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 discloses the court's reasoning.
Without knowing what considerations the lower court relied upon,*fn3 we are unable to pass upon the validity of appellant's claim.
Accordingly, we are bound to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand the case to once again afford the trial court an opportunity ...