# Commonwealth v. Johnson

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 29, 2009 · 604 Pa. 176

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540313

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Kareem JOHNSON, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 29, 2009
- **Citations:** 604 Pa. 176; 985 A.2d 915; 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2784
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Todd, McCaffery, Greenspan
- **Cited by:** 639 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540313

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 constitute…
- 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…
- 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 form…
- 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 [an appellate court] … to fo…

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540313. Public record. Not legal advice.