Ap-pellee’s return motion. Former Justice McCAFFERY did not participate in the decision of this case. Chief Justice CASTILLE and Justice EAKIN and STEVENS join the opinion. Justice SAYLOR files a dissenting opinion in which Justice TODD joins. Justice TODD files a dissenting opinion. 1 . Although the Commonwealth Court’s ultimate disposition was favorable to the Commonwealth by virtue of the affirmance of the trial court’s dismissal of Appellee’s petition for return of property, we accepted allocatur agreeing to hear this case. The Commonwealth argues that it is aggrieved by the appellate court's published decision because of the burden it imposed with respect to motions for return of property filed hereafter. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 575 Pa. 500, 837 A.2d 1157, 1160 n. 7 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Under the Commonwealth Court's ruling, the
holding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because it was filed without proper authority recognizing that a lower court cannot change the law of the case as decided by the highest court hearing a case recognizing the court of common pleas of dauphin county as the predecessor to the commonwealth court holding on appeal the judgment of the lower court is presumed to be correct and the burden is on the appellant to present to us a sufficient record from which we can determine whether the lower court has erred in the respect complained of recognizing that although the commonwealth prevailed in the lower court it was aggrieved by the burden imposed therein