This prevents unnecessary appeals. Commonwealth v. Norris, 256 Pa. Super. 196, 389 A.2d 668 (1978). Normally, a trial judge may not simply defer to earlier rulings of other judges or decline to address an issue, as this would defeat the purpose of ensuring thorough consideration of the issues at the trial court level.
Moreover, a fact-finding court should support its determinations with sufficient explanations of the facts and law, including specific citations to the record for all evidence on which it relies, and to the legal authority on which it relies, to facilitate appellate review. Cf. Commonwealth v. Norris, 256 Pa.Super. 196, 389 A.2d 668 (1978). We turn now to the Commonwealth's claim that the PCRA court erred when it failed to conclude that Appellee's conflict of interest issue had been waived.
Moreover, a fact-finding court should support its determinations with sufficient explanations of the facts and law, including specific citations to the record for all evidence on which it relies, and to the legal authority on which it relies, to facilitate appellate review. Cf. Commonwealth v. Norris, [389 A.2d 668 (Pa. Super. 1978)]. Commonwealth v. Weiss, 986 A.2d 808, 816 n. 4. (Pa. 2009).
The court en banc, when reviewing post-verdict motions in accordance with Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123(a), has the power to reverse prior erroneous rulings; this authority aids in deterring unnecessary appeals. Commonwealth v. Norris, 256 Pa. Super. 196, 389 A.2d 668 (1978). The post-verdict process
The post-verdict motions court, Wallace, J., purported to overrule Judge Halbert's order suppressing the statement. Although a court, in certain circumstances, may take such action at this stage, see Commonwealth v. Norris, 256 Pa. Super. 196, 389 A.2d 668 (1978); Commonwealth v. Bonser, 215 Pa. Super. 452, 258 A.2d 675 (1969); Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123(e), there was no basis for such action in the instant case because the Commonwealth had not introduced the statement at trial. The lower court's consideration of that statement in connection with post-verdict motions was improper.
The purpose of filing post-trial motions prior to taking an appeal is to assure efficient operation of the judicial process and to offer the trial court an opportunity to rectify errors and obviate the delay and expense of appellate review. Commonwealth v. Norris, 256 Pa. Super. 196, 389 A.2d 668 (1978); Commonwealth v. Grillo, 208 Pa. Super. 444, 222 A.2d 427 (1966). When defense counsel fails to assert issues before the trial court by way of his brief or oral argument, the trial court is not properly apprised of the contentions of error and is not placed in a position to correct them.
In addition, we note that the lower court opinion does not discuss appellant's Rule 1100 argument. See Commonwealth v.Norris, 256 Pa. Super. 196, 389 A.2d 668 (1978). We therefore remand this case to the lower court for consideration of appellant's Rule 1100 arguments, and the reasons for its decision with respect thereto.
Moreover, a fact-finding court should support its determinations with sufficient explanations of the facts and law, including specific citations to the record for all evidence on which it relies, and to the legal authority on which it relies, to facilitate appellate review. Cf. Commonwealth v. Norris, [389 A.2d 668 (Pa. Super. 1978)]. Commonwealth v. Weiss, 986 A.2d 808, 816 n. 4. (Pa. 2009).