No. 1167 Pittsburgh, 1980, Appeal from judgment of sentence dated August 28, 1980, Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, Butler County, at Nos. 286 & 287 of 1976.
R. Bruce Ralston, Butler, for appellant.
John H. Brydon, District Attorney, Butler, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Beck, Johnson and Popovich, JJ.
[ 306 Pa. Super. Page 101]
Appellant has appealed from his convictions for escape,*fn1 implements for escape,*fn2, theft,*fn3 recklessly endangering another person*fn4 and criminal conspiracy.*fn5
The following facts are established by the record. The instant charges arose from Appellant's escape from the Butler County Jail on February 28, 1976 while incarcerated on robbery charges. He was found guilty of all of the instant charges and after the presentation and denial of post-verdict motions, Appellant was sentenced. Appellant's convictions, on direct appeal to this court, were affirmed by Per Curiam Order. Commonwealth v. Hobson, 259 Pa. Super. 602, 393 A.2d 1277 (1978), petition for allowance of appeal denied Nov. 27, 1978.*fn6
On February 1, 1979 Appellant filed, pro se, a P.C.H.A. petition alleging that his sentence for escape and implements for escape was illegal.*fn7 The trial court appointed counsel for Appellant, and counsel then filed a Petition for Correction of Sentence. After a hearing on May 6, 1980 concerning the sentencing issue, the trial court issued a memorandum and order correcting Appellant's sentence on
[ 306 Pa. Super. Page 102]
August 28, 1980. Neither Appellant nor his counsel received notice of the proposed issuance of this order and no hearing occurred on that date. Appellant has appealed from that order pro se and new counsel has been appointed.
Appellant raises three issues on appeal, namely: (1) was Appellant properly sentenced on August 28, 1980, (2) was Appellant denied effective assistance because of P.C.H.A. counsel's failure to assert all issues contained in the petitions and, (3) was Appellant denied his rights under P.C.H.A. for the failure of the trial court to hold a full evidentiary hearing on the issues other than sentencing.
The first issue concerns the propriety of the trial court's correction of Appellant's previous sentence. Appellant alleges that the requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1405 were not met, i.e., requiring the presence of the defendant at the time of sentencing and a statement on the record of the reasons for sentence. We agree.
The trial court is empowered to modify a sentence only if it notifies the defendant and the district attorney of its intention to do so. Commonwealth v. Horsman, 239 Pa. Super. 534, 361 A.2d 433 (1976). It is well-established that a criminal defendant and his attorney should be present during all aspects of sentencing. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 1405, Commonwealth v. Reed, 254 Pa. Super. 461, 386 A.2d 41 (1978); see also Commonwealth v. ...