holding that court may overlook failure to comply with Rule 2119(f) where appellee fails to object and substantial question is evident from appellant's brief
Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. PoustNo. 96-6370.
January 6, 1997.
C.A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 94 F. 3d 510.
holding that court may overlook failure to comply with Rule 2119(f) where appellee fails to object and substantial question is evident from appellant's brief
Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Pouststating court may overlook appellant's failure to provide Rule 2119(f) statement when appellee fails to object, if substantial question is evident from appellant's brief; boilerplate assertions do not qualify as substantial questions regarding discretionary aspects of sentencing
Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. SimsFull title:AMERSON v. IOWA ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jan 6, 1997
[10–12] "Where the trial court rules that a defendant has failed to make a prima facie showing [at step one],…
State v. ShaferFurthermore, we have never directly held it is reversible error to refuse to give such a curative instruction…