Com.
v.
Detwiler

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Superior Court of PennsylvaniaJun 21, 1974
229 Pa. Super. 33 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974)
229 Pa. Super. 33323 A.2d 48

March 18, 1974.

June 21, 1974.

Criminal Law — Practice — Waiver of recording of testimony — Waiver of right to file post-trial motions — Effectiveness of waivers — Post Conviction Hearing Act.

The effectiveness of a waiver of the recording of testimony and of the right to file post-trial motions should be determined in a proceeding under the Post Conviction Hearing Act.

Before WATKINS, P.J., JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT, and SPAETH, JJ.

Appeal, No. 403, Oct. T., 1973, from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, March T., 1972, No. 37, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mahlon B. Detwiler. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Indictment charging defendant with assault with intent to kill. Before HABERSTROH, J., without a jury.

Finding of guilty and judgment of sentence entered thereon. Defendant appealed.

Eugene J. Ianuzzi, for appellant.

Thomas G. Peoples, Jr. and John Woodcock, Jr., Assistant District Attorneys, and Asdmos Davis, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.


Submitted March 18, 1974.


The appellant herein was convicted of assault with intent to kill, but contends that at trial he produced evidence of intoxication sufficient to negate mens rea. However, no record was made of the trial and no attempt has been made to provide this Court with an equivalent picture of what transpired at trial. Under such circumstances we cannot give meaningful appellate review of the question raised.

At the inception of the trial, appellant's counsel waived the recording of testimony and at sentencing the same counsel waived the right to file post-trial motions. The effectiveness of such waivers should be determined in a proceeding under the Post Conviction Hearing Act.

Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. 1580, §§ 1-14, 19 P. S. § 1180-1 et seq. (Supp. 1973-74).

Judgment affirmed without prejudice to the right of appellant to proceed with his remedies under the Post Conviction Hearing Act in the court below.