OPINION
ROBERTS, Justice.A jury convicted appellant of murder of the first degree as a result of the September 30, 1975 shooting of Christopher *482Ross. On April 1, 1976, appellant filed boilerplate motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial. The court of common pleas denied post-verdict motions and, on February 7, 1977, sentenced appellant to life imprisonment.
On direct appeal, appellant contends that he is entitled to relief on two grounds: (1) the trial court improperly restricted defense counsel’s cross-examination of a police detective and did not permit counsel to elicit the circumstances in which police took statements from a defense witness; and (2) the prosecuting attorney, in his summation, included remarks which were so prejudicial as to entitle appellant to a new trial. Our Criminal Procedural Rule 1123(a) and this Court’s mandate in Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975) as well as subsequent cases require that judgment of sentence be affirmed.
Rule 1123(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, adopted June 8, 1973, provides:
“Within ten (10) days after a finding of guilt, the defendant shall have the right to file written motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. Only those grounds may be considered which were raised in pre-trial proceedings or at trial, unless the trial judge, upon cause shown, allows otherwise. Argument shall be scheduled and heard promptly after such motions are filed, and only those issues raised and the grounds relied upon in the motions may be argued.”
In Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. at 32 n.1, 331 A.2d at 214 n.1 this Court on January 29, 1975, unanimously stated:
“The practice in some judicial districts of ignoring the requirements of Rule 1123(a) is condemned. Henceforth, issues not presented in compliance with the rule will not be considered by our trial and appellate courts.”
In Commonwealth v. Terry, 462 Pa. 595, 602 n.3, 342 A.2d 92, 96 n.3 (1975), this Court “stress[ed] that written post-verdict motions filed subsequent to our decision in Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975), will be conclusive on the issues to be considered by the Court en banc and reviewable by appellate tribunals.” And in Commonwealth *483v. Grace, 473 Pa. 542, 546, 375 A.2d 721, 723 (1977), this Court “again remind[ed] counsel that written post-verdict motions must be filed and these motions must include every assignment of error which counsel wishes to preserve for appellate review.”
The requirement that issues and ground for relief be specifically raised in written post-verdict motions ensures their thorough consideration and enhances the quality of review at both the trial and appellate levels. “Failure to specify in writing, the reasons urged in support of motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment complicates the appellate task of determining whether alleged trial errors have been properly preserved for appellate review.” Commonwealth v. Hilton, 461 Pa. 93, 95 n.1, 334 A.2d 648, 649 n.1 (1975).
“Where boilerplate variety motions are filed it is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine with precision the issues actually argued before the court below. The trial court’s opinion may not refer to all questions touched upon in oral argument; the trial court may sua sponte address an issue not presented by the parties; and finally, the court may misperceive the issue actually urged by the party.”
Commonwealth v. Waters, 477 Pa. 430, 435, 384 A.2d 234, 237 (1978) (footnote omitted). As we noted in Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 457 Pa. 255, 259, 322 A.2d 114, 117 (1974):
“With the issue properly presented, the trial court is more likely to reach a satisfactory result, thus obviating the need for appellate review on this issue. Or if a new trial is necessary, it may be granted by the trial court without subjecting both the litigants and the courts to the expense and delay inherent in appellate review. . [Ajppellate courts will be free to more expeditiously dispose of the issues properly preserved for appeal.”
Quoted with approval in Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 421, 326 A.2d 272, 274 (1974).
*484As indicated, appellant filed boilerplate post-verdict motions on April 1, 1976, fourteen months after our decision in Blair and more than one full year after its March 1, 1975 publication in the Atlantic Second Advance sheets. The issues of improper restriction of cross-examination and a prejudicial summation by the prosecuting attorney were raised in writing for the first time by appellant before this Court, and not included in his written post-verdict motions or heretofore submitted in writing. Appellant requested leave of court to file additional or supplemental post-verdict motions when the trial transcript became available. There is nothing on this record, however, to indicate either that such leave was granted or that additional or supplemental written motions raising the same grounds for relief appellant now presents to this Court were in fact filed.
Appellant’s written post-verdict motions make no mention of the issues appellant now requests this Court to consider, and contrary to the assertion of Mr. Chief Justice Eagen, nothing else on the record, or otherwise properly before this Court, indicates appellant preserved these issues in writing. Despite our express January 1975 mandate in Blair that “issues not presented in compliance with the rule will not be considered by our trial and appellate courts,” the post-verdict court nonetheless undertook to consider and decide the issues on its own motion. Such action by the trial court does not alter this Court’s rule that issues not raised in post-verdict motions will not be considered by our trial or appellate courts. In Commonwealth v. Waters, 477 Pa. 430, 436 n.8, 384 A.2d 234, 237 n.8 (1978) this Court emphasized:
“[W]e do not believe that the fact that the trial court considered the question provides a basis for departure from the mandate of Blair. First, Blair was direction both to counsel and the court below to consider only those issues properly raised in the written post-trial motions in accordance with Rule 1123(a). Secondly, as has been stated, the mere fact that the court below may have considered the issue does not assure the objectives sought to be achieved by this particular section of the rule.” *485Here, just as in Waters, the failure of appellant and the trial court to comply with Rule 1123(a) and the mandates of Blair, Hilton, and Terry compels the conclusion that the issues appellant now seeks to raise here are not preserved for appellate review. Accord, Commonwealth v. Gamble, 485 Pa. 418, 402 A.2d 1032 (1979); Commonwealth v. Hennessey, 485 Pa. 647, 403 A.2d 575 (1979). Hence the now asserted issues of improper restriction of cross-examination and prejudicial summation have been waived and, as this Court mandated in Blair, “will not be considered by our trial and appellate courts.”
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
EAGEN, C. J., filed a concurring opinion in which O’BRIEN and FLAHERTY, JJ., join. MANDERINO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.