Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. THEODORE SANFORD (03/01/82)

submitted: March 1, 1982.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
v.
THEODORE SANFORD, APPELLANT



No. 1443 Philadelphia, 1980, Appeal from Judgments of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Philadelphia County, Nos. 616-617, 619-620 October Term, 1979.

COUNSEL

Methuselah Z. O. Bradley, IV, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Deborah Fox, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Wieand, Beck and Hoffman, JJ.

Author: Wieand

[ 299 Pa. Super. Page 66]

This appeal from judgments of sentence for burglary, robbery, conspiracy and terroristic threats has been submitted on briefs without oral argument. The brief filed by appellant violates numerous appellate rules and does not permit a determination of those rulings or issues which he wishes to have reviewed. Because appellant's inadequate brief impairs our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review of the trial, we quash the appeal without reaching the merits.

Pa.R.App.P. 2116(a) requires that a brief contain a statement of the questions involved. Specifically, the rule provides:

The statement of the questions involved must state the question or questions in the briefest and most general terms, without names, dates, amounts or particulars of any kind. It should not ordinarily exceed 15 lines, must never exceed one page, and must always be on a separate page, without any other matter appearing thereon. This rule is to be considered in the highest degree mandatory, admitting of no exception; ordinarily no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of questions involved or suggested thereby . . . .

Appellant's brief contained the following statement of questions involved:

Was the Appellant denied his Constitutional rights to a fair trial when:

(1) The court committed reversable [sic] error in it's [sic] rulings and/or

(2) Prosecutional [sic] misconduct and/or

(3) The incompetary [sic] of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.