On June 1, 1976, appellant Terry Francis Wertz pleaded guilty to a charge of corruption of minors. He was sentenced to serve eleven to twenty-two months imprisonment. In this appeal, appellant’s sole contention is that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive under the circumstances and in light of the psychiatric evaluation and presen-tence investigation presented at the date of sentencing;1 he challenges neither the legality of his sentence nor the propriety of the procedure whereby it was imposed. For the reasons developed below, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.
It is well-settled that the sentence to be imposed upon a convicted defendant is within the broad discretion of the sentencing judge. See Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118, 351 A.2d 650 (1976). Here, however, we are unable to determine whether the sentencing judge abused his discretion. The record contains neither an opinion by the sentencing judge nor an articulation of the reasons for his sentencing decision. In these circumstances, we must vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing, together with instructions to the sentencing judge that he file a statement of reasons for the particular sentence imposed. Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977).2
*586Judgment of sentence vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
SPAETH, J., files a concurring opinion.. Appellant contends that more weight should have been given to his background and lack of prior record.
. We recognize, albeit regrettably, that our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Kostka, 475 Pa. 85, 379 A.2d 884 *586(1977) leaves no doubt that Riggins is to be applied to sentencings preceding its announcement.