¶2I concur in the result reached by the majority, but disagree with much of the reasoning. First, although I agree that it was not error for the court below to ¿dmit the evidence seized in the search of the apartment building in which appellant resided, this is for the sole reason that there was neither a motion to suppress under Rule 2001 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure nor an objection at trial to the admission of the evidence.
¶3Second, I strongly disagree with the statement of the majority that “as soon as defendant admitted the stabbing, he was informed of his constitutional rights ás required by Miranda v. Arizona [384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966)].” On the contrary, neither at that time nor at any other time was he advised that a lawyer would be appointed to represent him if he was indigent. Commonwealth v. Sites, 427 Pa. 486, 235 A. 2d 387 (1967). Although the majority does not discuss it, appellant signed a written statement, which was admitted into evidence over his objection. I agree with thé court below that the statement was properly admitted, but only for the reason that no motion to suppress was timely made under Rule 324 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Commonwealth v. Eckhart, 430 Pa. 311, 242 A. 2d 271 (1968).