J-S65002-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JAMAL CLARK
Appellant No. 89 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 3, 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0013813-2010
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 10, 2014
Appellant, Jamal Clark, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered December 3, 2012, by the Honorable Chris R. Wogan, Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. We affirm.
A lengthy recitation of the facts and procedural history is unnecessary
to our disposition of this case. Following a waiver trial, Appellant was
convicted of robbery,1 carrying a firearm without a license,2 theft by unlawful
taking,3 and carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia.4 On December 3,
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii).
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1).
3
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a).
4
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108.
J-S65002-14
2012, Appellant was sentenced to five to ten years’ imprisonment, to be
followed by three years’ probation. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Clark argues that the Commonwealth failed to present
sufficient evidence that he was the perpetrator of the crimes for which he
was convicted. Initially, we are obliged to note that the entirety of
Appellant’s brief is largely composed of run-on sentences and is replete with
spelling and punctuation errors. Most egregiously, Appellant cites only two
Rules of Evidence in support of his claims – Appellant cites to no relevant
case law or other pertinent statute.5 As Appellant simply provides no
discussion of pertinent legal authority to support his claim that the evidence
pertaining to identification was insufficient to support his convictions, we are
constrained to find this issue is waived. Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d
1276, 1278 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“Arguments not appropriately developed are
waived.”); Commonwealth v. Russell, 665 A.2d 1239 (Pa. Super. 1995)
(Superior Court would not review argument that contained no citation to or
discussion of relevant legal authority).
Rather than addressing the identification issue, Appellant’s brief, such
that it is, addresses the argument that the trial court improperly admitted
the testimony of the assistant district attorney who handled Appellant’s
____________________________________________
5
Appellant readily admits in the portion of his brief entitled “Table of Cases
Cited” that “NO CASES WERE CITED[.]” Appellant’s Brief at iii (capitalization
in original).
-2-
J-S65002-14
preliminary hearing. This precise issue was not raised in Appellant’s Rule
1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal. See Rule 1925(b)
statement, 7/15/13. Therefore, we are constrained to find this issue, too, is
waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Commonwealth v. Melvin, ---
A.3d ---, ---, 2014 WL 4100200 at *28 (Pa. Super., filed Aug. 21, 2014).
As we find that Appellant has waived the claims presented on appeal,
we affirm his judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/10/2014
-3-