Having held so, we need to reexamine a recent decision from a panel of this court. In Commonwealth v. Shaw, 379 Pa. Super. 491, 550 A.2d 555 (1988), the panel believed that they had to address appellant's pro se arguments due to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's per curiam order in Commonwealth v. Gaerttner, 518 Pa. 452, 543 A.2d 1091 (1988), which remanded a case to this court for consideration of the issues raised in the pro se brief. For the following reasons, we no longer abide by the Shaw principle concerning pro se briefs.
Although appellant expresses no dissatisfaction with counsel's performance, he couches these claims in ineffectiveness terms. Pursuant to Commonwealth v. Gaerttner, 518 Pa. 452, 543 A.2d 1091 (1988), see also Commonwealth v. Shaw, 379 Pa. Super. 491, 495 n. 2, 550 A.2d 555, 557 n. 2 (1988); but see Commonwealth v. Aultman, 387 Pa. Super. 113, 119, 563 A.2d 1210, 1216 (1989), we have carefully reviewed the record in light of appellant's pro se allegations, and we find his claims to be meritless. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
This court has explained that the principle behind statutory credit is that the defendant should be given credit for time spent in custody before being sentenced for a given offense. Commonwealth v. Shaw, 379 Pa. Super. 491, 499, 550 A.2d 555, 559 (1988), allocatur denied, 524 Pa. 607, 569 A.2d 1366 (1989). Merigris relies on our opinions in Commonwealth v. Frank, 263 Pa. Super. 452, 398 A.2d 663 (1979) and in Commonwealth v.Hollawell, 413 Pa. Super. 42, 604 A.2d 723 (1992), to support his argument that he should receive credit for time served toward both the federal and the state sentences.
The principle underlying this statute is that a defendant should be given credit for time spent in custody prior to sentencing for a particular offense. Commonwealth v. Shaw, 379 Pa. Super. 491, 499, 550 A.2d 555, 559 (1988), allocatur denied 524 Pa. 607, 569 A.2d 1366 (1989). Our exhaustive research finds no Pennsylvania case directly on point with the facts of the instant case.