concurring.
I agree with the majority that because the Commonwealth failed to establish that appellant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights, appellant’s statement was inadmissible. I agree also that North Carolina v. Butler, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979) does not compel a different result. As a matter of state law, this Court need not, and should not follow Butler. I therefore join in the majority’s mandate reversing judgment of sentence and granting appellant a new trial.
I disagree, however, with the conclusion of the majority that the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to transfer his case to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court was proper. The court did not set forth its reasons for denying appel*471lant’s motion with sufficient specificity to afford meaningful appellate review of its decision. We should, therefore, require that on remand, another, and more complete certification hearing be held and a new decision rendered in conformity with Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 561, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1057, 16 L.Ed. 84 (1966); Commonwealth v. Pyle, 462 Pa. 613, 342 A.2d 101 (1975); Commonwealth v. Harrod, - Pa.Super. -, 394 A.2d 567 (1978), and Commonwealth v. Bey, 249 Pa.Super. 185, 375 A.2d 1034 (1977).
MANDERINO, J., joins in this concurring opinion.