Opinion ID: 3159995
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of Supplemental Pretrial Motions

Text: In his next claim, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his supplemental omnibus pretrial motion. See Brief of Appellant at 38. Appellant fails to identify the substance of the particular pretrial motion at issue and sets forth no argument whatsoever in support of this claim. The Commonwealth argues that the claim is, therefore, waived, and we agree. See Wirth v. Commonwealth, 95 A.3d 822, 837 (Pa. 2014) (holding that “[w]here an appellate brief fails to . . . develop an issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived. It is not the obligation of an [J-2-2015] - 32 appellate court to formulate appellant's arguments for him.”) (internal quotations omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing that appellate briefs must contain “such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent”).