Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Horace Egelston, No. S.A. No. 164-87.
Leo M. Pall, for appellant.
Paul R. Bartolacci, for appellee.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Doyle, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Narick. Judge MacPhail did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 122 Pa. Commw. Page 323]
Horace Egelston (Appellant) has appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County finding him guilty on three citations issued by Upper
[ 122 Pa. Commw. Page 324]
Darby Township (Township) and imposing a $900.00 fine and a ninety-day jail sentence. Because of procedural improprieties, we are required to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand to the trial court to dispose of Appellant's post-verdict motions.
The Township Health Officer issued citations numbered C22569, C22578 and C22579*fn1 to Appellant on August 7, August 13 and August 12, 1986, for violations of Section 3.01 of Ordinance No. 2295 of the Township of Upper Darby.*fn2 Appellant was found guilty of these violations by a district justice and filed a timely appeal to common pleas court. A hearing de novo on the charges was held August 3, 1987. The matter was then continued to August 28, 1987 so that counsel could file briefs on the subject of Appellant's contention that the Township ordinance was unconstitutionally vague.*fn3 At the August 28 hearing, the court entertained brief argument on the constitutional issue and then pronounced Appellant guilty on each of the three citations. The court advised Appellant of his right to file post-verdict motions within ten days in accordance with the terms of Pa. R. Crim. P. 1123 (Rule 1123), but nonetheless proceeded to enter a sentence it termed "conditional." (Notes of Testimony [N.T.] of August 28, 1987, at 13). Its written order, dated August 28, 1987, provided (unconditionally)
[ 122 Pa. Commw. Page 325]
for the maximum fine of $300.00 plus costs for each violation, in addition to ninety days in jail to be served if Appellant did not clean up his property within ninety days.
Thereafter, on September 3, 1987, Appellant filed post-verdict motions for a new trial, in arrest of judgment, and for reconsideration of the sentence. No action was taken on these motions*fn4 and on September 25, 1987, Appellant filed a ...