The opinion
HESTER, Judge,
dissenting:
This is an appeal from a denial of a petition for Post Conviction Relief.
Appellant pleaded guilty on December 12, 1975 to robbery and criminal conspiracy and was sentenced to two (2) concurrent terms of 2V2 to 10 years. No Post Trial Motions were filed and no appeal was taken.
Appellant subsequently filed a petition for Post Conviction Relief. After a hearing, the petition was denied and this appeal follows.
Appellant asserts, inter alia, that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary where the elements of the crimes with which he was charged were not outlined to him in understandable terms and that his counsel’s failure to insure that the elements were so explained constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
Pa.R.Cr.P. § 319(a) requires that when a defendant pleads guilty in a criminal case, the trial judge must engage in a colloquy demonstrating on the record that the defendant *268 understands, among other things, the nature of the charges against him. Commonwealth v. Tabb, 477 Pa. 115 , 383 A.2d 849 (1978). Commonwealth v. Holmes, 468 Pa. 409 , 364 A.2d 259 (1976).
After examination of the record colloquy, we find it barren of any mention of the elements of the crimes charged. In fact, the only mention of the crime was:
Q. In this particular case, you have elected to plead guilty to the robbery bill.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did I explain to you that the robbery bill and the conspiracy bill carry a maximum sentence of twenty years?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you understand that, in this particular case, if you pled guilty, the Judge would be able to give you a sentence of a maximum of up to twenty years?
A. Yes, sir.
(N.T. - 4)
This was clearly error by the court and also constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant’s trial attorney failed to insure that the elements of the offense were explained in the colloquy. Commonwealth v. Holmes, supra.
However, the Commonwealth argues that this issue has been waived by the failure to raise it at the P.C.H.A. hearing below. In the P.C.H.A. petition, appellant alleges that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary and that this issue had not been finally litigated or waived because of counsel’s ineffectiveness. Furthermore, this precise issue was argued before the P.C.H.A. court. We disagree with the majority and find the appellant had properly preserved this issue.
I would reverse the order of the court below, vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial.