concluding ____________________________________________ 4The criminal docket for Jones’ case is unavailable on the Common Pleas Case Management System. We therefore cannot determine whether Jones’ docket contained a notation that the notice was sent. - 14 - J-S01008-23 argument that a prosecutor’s comment deprived the appellant of a fair trial was waived for failing to cite and develop argument
How later courts described this case
- concluding ____________________________________________ 4The criminal docket for Jones’ case is unavailable on the Common Pleas Case Management System. We therefore cannot determine whether Jones’ docket contained a notation that the notice was sent. - 14 - J-S01008-23 argument that a prosecutor’s comment deprived the appellant of a fair trial was waived for failing to cite and develop argument
- stating that claims are waived “where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review” and holding appellant’s single-sentence arguments constituted “the type of cursory legal discussion which is wholly inadequate to preserve an issue for appellate review.”
- holding that “where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived,” further stating that “[i]t is not the obligation of [an appellate court] . . . to formulate [an a]ppellant’s arguments for him”
- stating that “where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority[,] or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived. It is not the obligation of this Court, . . . to formulate [an a]ppellant’s arguments for him.” (citations omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION
Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion.
My only comment is to express continuing concern regarding the many cases in which we are seeing a clear failure, on the part of counsel, to provide the professional services neces *198 sary to secure appellate review on the merits of a capital defendant’s or petitioner’s claims. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Walter, 600 Pa. 392, 397-404 , 966 A.2d 560, 563-67 (2009) (describing various of a capital appellant’s claims as “unintelligible,” underdeveloped, “vague and confusing,” waived, “incomprehensible,” and “incapable of review”). This is a matter which certainly merits ongoing monitoring by this Court in its supervisory capacity. The close attention of the Legislature is warranted as well, at the very least in terms of ensuring the availability of appropriate funding to provide the resources necessary to continue to reconcile its scheme of capital punishment with the constitutional mandate of an adequate defense for indigent individuals whom a State seeks to put to death.