No. 127 Pittsburgh, 1982, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Criminal Division, at No. 1447 of 1980
Carmela R.M. Presogna, Assistant Public Defender, Erie, submitted a brief on behalf of appellant.
Shad Connelly, Assistant District Attorney, Erie, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Cavanaugh, Brosky and Montgomery, JJ.
[ 309 Pa. Super. Page 530]
This is an appeal from judgment of sentence for robbery.*fn1 Appellant raises eleven issues on appeal. Three of them were not preserved through inclusion in the written
[ 309 Pa. Super. Page 531]
post-verdict motions and are therefore waived on appeal.*fn2 Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975). Since the post-verdict motions were not timely filed we are unable to review all but one of the remaining claims of error presented. One issue, of ineffectiveness, is properly before this court. We find it to be a meritless claim. Hence, we affirm.
The verdict in this case was entered on April 15, 1981. Post-verdict motions were first filed on April 28, 1981, 13 days after the verdict.*fn3 Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1123(a) provides in part:
Within ten (10) days after a finding of guilt, the defendant shall have the right to file written motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment.
Despite the violation of this requirement, the trial court proceeded to address the issues raised by the motion on its merits.
The issue before us is this: When post-verdict motions have not been timely filed, and yet those motions were acted upon by the trial court on their merits, are the issues raised in those post-verdict motions preserved for appeal? We hold that they are not preserved but have been waived.
Research discloses no appellate court opinion in this Commonwealth entirely on point. Guidance can nonetheless ...