Commonwealth v. Laboy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that this Court “should have afforded the requested sufficiency review” in a “relatively straightforward . . . case”
• holding that appellate review should be afforded, notwithstanding a vague Rule 1925(b) statement challenging the sufficiency detail in its Rule 1925(a) opinion
• concluding that a vague Rule 1925(b) concise statement does not preclude appellate review when “the [trial] court readily apprehended [the a]ppellant’s claim and addressed it in substantial detail”
• holding that a vague Rule 1925(b) concise statement does not preclude appellate review when “the [trial] court readily apprehended [the a]ppellant’s claim and addressed it in substantial detail”
• holding that the appellant was entitled to review of issues, though vaguely articulated in his Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) statement, because the trial court “readily apprehended [his] claim and addressed it in substantial detail”
• holding that this Court erred in determining that the appellant had failed to adequately develop, in his Rule 1925(b) statement, the claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).