Commonwealth v. Drew
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Per curiam
This is a direct appeal from judgment of sentence for robbery and related offenses. We must quash the appeal, for appellant’s brief is in almost total noncompliance with the rules related to form and content of appellate briefs.
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101 states that if the defects in the brief of the appellant are substantial, the appeal may be quashed. In this instance, the defects are indeed substantial. Appellant’s counsel has made no serious attempt to comply with the following Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure:
2111(a) Brief of the Appellant — General rule
2114…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SanfordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Commonwealth v. RoseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Commonwealth v. JacksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Commonwealth v. ColonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Wicker v. Civil Service CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Butler v. IllesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Commonwealth v. MillerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Commonwealth v. FelixSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Commonwealth v. SpuckSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Commonwealth v. SneddonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.