Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Lycoming County at No. 86-10, 602.
Angela C. Lovecchio, Assistant Public Defender, Williamsport, for appellant.
Brett O. Feese, District Attorney, Williamsport, for Com.
Cavanaugh, Melinson and Watkins, JJ.
[ 378 Pa. Super. Page 63]
This is an appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County following appellant's conviction for robbery, terroristic threats, and possession of an instrument of crime. We affirm.
On appeal, appellant, Herbert Melvin, presents the following eight issues, set forth in his "Statement of Issues Involved," for our consideration:
1. Did the trial court commit error in refusing defense motion for mistrial made subsequent to testimonal [sic] reference by a Commonwealth witness to appellant's silence?
2. Did the trial court commit error in refusing to allow physical comparison evidence relevant to identifiction [sic] of appellant?
[ 378 Pa. Super. Page 643]
. Did the trial court commit error in refusing to allow appellant to demonstrate vocal ability in non-testimonial fashion, not subject to cross-examination, relevant to identification of appellant?
4. Did the trial court commit error in refusing as irrelevant stipulation of demonstrative evidence from preliminary hearing as to the witness' identification of alleged weapon?
5. Was the verdict against the weight of the evidence?
6. Was the sentencing court proper to apply the Deadly Weapon Enhancement Provision of 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9712?
7. Did the sentencing court improperly determine terroristic threats and the robbery as non-merging charges for purposes of sentencing?
8. Was the sentence given excessive?
Brief of Appellant at page 3.
Initially, we must note that appellant has violated Rule 2119 (a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 101 et seq.*fn1 Melvin fails to address each of the eight issues separately in the "Argument" section of his brief. Rather than presenting each issue separately, appellant has recited a single argument for issues two, three, four, and five, and, a single argument for issues six, seven, and eight. Despite Melvin's disregard of Rule 2119(a) and the ...