No. 711 Philadelphia, 1980, Appeal from Judgments of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Philadelphia County, Nos. 1505 May Term, 1977, 1155-1157 June Term, 1977 and 861, 907 July Term, 1977.
Steven Dickstein, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Gaele McGlaughlin Barthold, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Cercone, President Judge, and Hester and Wieand, JJ.
[ 320 Pa. Super. Page 110]
Talmadge Garwood was tried by jury and found guilty of two counts of aggravated assault*fn1 and one count of possessing an instrument of crime*fn2 in connection with a double shooting in Philadelphia. Prior to trial Garwood attempted to waive trial by jury in order to be tried by the court sitting without a jury. The Commonwealth opposed a bench trial and asserted a right to demand trial by jury in accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5104(c).*fn3 The trial court denied appellant's request for a trial without jury because of the Commonwealth's demand for a jury trial under the statutory guarantee aforesaid. An appeal
[ 320 Pa. Super. Page 111]
was taken to this Court from the judgment of sentence.*fn4 The sole argument advanced on appeal was that the statutory provision giving the Commonwealth the right to demand a jury trial conflicted with Pa.R.Crim.P. 1101*fn5 and was invalid because it infringed upon the procedural rule making power of the Supreme Court. Because the appeal presented a constitutional challenge to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5104(c), this Court certified the constitutional issue to the Supreme Court for decision.
On December 30, 1982, in Commonwealth v. Sorrell, et al., 500 Pa. 355, 456 A.2d 1326 (1982), the Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional and that the trial court's reliance thereon to deny appellant's request for a non-jury trial had been erroneous. The record was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings. Inasmuch as the only issue in the instant appeal was that decided by the Supreme Court, we are required to reverse the judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial. This is the same relief which has been granted in other cases where appeals were pending in which the trial court relied upon 42 Pa.C.S. § 5104(c) to deny a defense request for trial without jury. See: Commonwealth v. Sherman, 318 Pa. Super. 440, 465 A.2d 35 (1983); Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 312 Pa. Super. 557, 459 A.2d 362 (1983); Commonwealth v. Giaccio, 311 Pa. Super. 259, 457 A.2d 875 (1983).
Because the caption on appellant's notice of appeal contains errors and has included cases to which the Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. Sorrell, supra, can
[ 320 Pa. Super. Page 112]
have no application, we must define the scope of the new trial which is being granted.
Appellant concedes that he is not entitled in this appeal to a new trial in cases numbered 1155 and 1157 June Term, 1977 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. The judgment of sentence in those cases was entered following pleas of guilty to offenses arising out of a separate stabbing incident,*fn6 ...