Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 10/22/2008

Commonwealth v. Williams

Citations

959 A.2d 1252
2008 Pa. Super. 250
2008 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3503
2008 WL 4649259

How courts have described this case

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

holding that when a concise statement does not specify the allegedly unproven elements, the sufficiency issue is waived on appeal
holding that the failure to articulate a sufficiency claim with specificity in a Rule 1925(b) statement is grounds for waiver
concluding that W insufficient evidence to sustain the charges of Murder, Robbery, VUFA no - 11 - J-A20022-14 -compliant with Rule 1925(b)
concluding that the appellant’s sufficiency claim is waived for failure to properly develop the claim and to set forth applicable case law
holding that to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, the 1925(b) statement must specify which elements of any crime the Commonwealth allegedly failed to sufficiently establish
concluding that Williams’ bald Rule 1925(b) statement that “[t]here was insufficient evidence to sustain the charges of Murder, Robbery, VUFA no license, and VUFA on the streets … [t]hus [Appellant] was denied due process of law[]” was non-compliant with Rule 1925(b)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stevens, Musmanno, Bender

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.