APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF SENTENCE MARCH 19, 1984 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, CRIMINAL NO. 3575 OF 1983
William P. Wismer, Media, for appellant.
Ann Osborne, Assistant District Attorney, Media, for Com., appellee.
Cirillo, Montemuro and Popovich, JJ. Popovich, J., concurs in result.
[ 351 Pa. Super. Page 606]
This is an appeal by Robert E. Dougherty from a judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. A jury found appellant guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. Post-trial motions were denied and appellant was ordered to serve a term of imprisonment of not less than forty-eight hours nor more than twenty-three months and three weeks, pay a fine of $750.00, and pay costs of prosecution.
The manner in which appellant has presented his questions for our review is itself a source of some confusion and must be considered preliminarily.
In the "questions presented" portion of his brief, appellant challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, and separately urges trial court error in not instructing the jury on an alleged inherent unreliability of the breathalyzer. However, in the body of his argument, appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for not preserving these issues.
Clearly, the weight, sufficiency, and jury charge issues are waived, for as appellant concedes, his counsel did not preserve them for appellate review.
Issues which are neither orally argued nor briefed in post-trial motions are abandoned. Commonwealth v. Manigault,
[ 351 Pa. Super. Page 607501]
Pa. 506, 462 A.2d 239 (1983); Commonwealth v. Urbina, 290 Pa. Super. 117, 434 A.2d 157 (1981). Furthermore, we reiterate our holding in Commonwealth v. Holmes, 315 Pa. Super. 256, 461 A.2d 1268 (1983). "Boiler-plate" attacks on the verdict, such as those contained in appellant's post-trial motions, ...