concurring and dissenting:
Based on my independent review of the record (RR. 2-3), I concur in the Majority’s conclusion that the increase in appellant’s sentence was proper. However, I dissent to the Majority’s recitation of the language in Commonwealth v. *555Possinger, 264 Pa.Super. 332, 334-45, 399 A.2d 1077, 1083 (1979), which is drawn from this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Moore, 226 Pa.Super. 58, 312 A.2d 422 (1973), to support such conclusion.
To explicate, in Commonwealth v. DeCaro, 298 Pa.Super. 32, 444 A.2d 160, this Court dealt with, inter alia, a contention concerning the legality of a Common Pleas Court judge issuing a greater sentence after an accused’s trial de novo than that entered by a Municipal Court judge. On this point, the Majority in DeCaro held that “there is no defect in the Common Pleas judge having imposed a greater sentence than that which was imposed by the Municipal Court judge, if the statutory and case law sentencing procedures are complied with,” (Emphasis added) (Footnote omitted) Id., 298 Pa.Superior Ct. at 42, 444 A.2d at 165. We found that such procedures were adhered to in DeCaro, but a remand was necessary to allow the accused the opportunity to file a motion for modification of sentence nunc pro tunc, since the trial court failed to inform the accused of her right to do so.
However, I wrote separately to point out that compliance with the sentencing procedures set forth in our statutory and case law, as a condition precedent to legitimizing an increased sentence, necessarily was at odds with our decision in Commonwealth v. Moore, supra. I stated the proposition as follows:
“In Moore, the question posed was:
‘whether or not the Common Pleas Court in a trial de novo following an appeal as of right from a Municipal Court summary conviction can impose a sentence greater than that originally imposed in the Municipal Court without placing upon the record facts justifying such increase in sentence.’ (Emphasis added) Id., 226 Pa.Superior Ct. at 60, 312 A.2d at 422.
To start with, the Court in Moore found the Kentucky system, as discussed in Colten [v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) ], to be indistinguisha*556ble from the Philadelphia system. Consistent therewith, the Court went on to hold that, unless the appellant appealing a summary judgment to a higher court alleges error in regard to the prior summary offense and in the sentence imposed by the municipal court, the reasoning supporting Colten rather than that supporting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1971) was applicable and governing. In other words, the Moore Court was stating that the trial judge’s reasoning for increasing a sentence after retrial was not required to ‘ “be based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding[,]” ’ Commonwealth v. Moore, supra, 226 Pa.Super. at 64, 312 A.2d 423, unless, as just stated, the appellant alleged error attendant to the summary proceedings and the sentence imposed by the municipal court. In light of our Supreme Court’s ruling in Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977) and the promulgation of the Sentencing Code (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9701 et seq. (Pamphlet, 1981)), such statement can no longer be considered to be a viable tenet in the law.
Furthermore, I find that Riggins and the Sentencing Code are sufficient safeguards to assure that any sentence imposed, regardless of whether it be entered after a trial de novo from a summary offense or following a retrial, comports with the dictates of due process and is not constitutionally infirm.” (Footnote omitted)
Commonwealth v. DeCaro, supra, 298 Pa.Super. at 49-50, 444 A.2d at 168 (POPOVICH, J., Concurring Opinion).
I have not deviated from my initial position on this subject, see Commonwealth v. Evans, 299 Pa.Super. 529, 445 A.2d 1255 (POPOVICH, J.), and I see no reason to do so now.