Under Pennsylvania law, a claim is considered waived unless specifically discussed in the "Argument" section of the brief. See Commonwealth v. Jackson, 431 A.2d 944, 945 (Pa. 1981) (failure to specifically discuss a claim in the argument section of a brief waives consideration of the claim); Commonwealth v. Colbert, 383 A.2d 490, 491 n. 1 (Pa. 1978) (per curiam) (claims not raised in the discussion portion of the brief are considered waived); Commonwealth v. J.F., 800 A.2d 942, 946 n. 10 (Pa.Super.Ct. 2002) (claims mentioned in the "Statement of Questions Presented" but not discussed in the argument section of a brief are deemed waived). Petitioner described the majority of his claims in the petition to the Pennsylvania in the general statement of his case, but neither listed these issues in the "Statement of Questions Involved" portion of the brief, nor discussed them in the "Argument" portion of the brief.

If, however, the amended provision alleges a different set of events, or the elements or defenses to the amended crime are materially different from the elements or defenses to the crime originally charged, such that the defendant would be prejudiced by the change, then the amendment is not permitted. Davalos, 779 A.2d at 1194 (quoting Commonwealth v. Stanley, 401 A.2d 1166, 1175 (Pa. Super. 1979)); see also Commonwealth v. J.F., 800 A.2d 942, 947 (Pa. Super. 2002) (same).

Appellants waive their last issue, whether it was reversible error for the trial court to deny appellants' joint motion for post-trial relief when appellants do not address the issue in the argument section of their brief. See Commonwealth v. J.F., 800 A.2d 942, 946 n.10 (Pa.Super. 2002). --------

Moreover, this Court has not hesitated to uphold multiple convictions for incest when the perpetrator has committed more than one criminal act against a single child. Commonwealth v. Northrip, 945 A.2d 198 (Pa. Super. 2008) (affirming conviction of four counts of incest in connection with repeated sexual assaults against one familial victim and vacating the judgment of sentence on other grounds); Commonwealth v. J.F., 800 A.2d 942, 944 (Pa. Super. 2002) (affirming judgment of sentence imposed after convictions for three counts of incest relating to sexual acts performed on two familial victims); Commonwealth v. Ross, 543 A.2d 1235, 1236 (Pa. Super. 1988) (affirming judgment of sentence imposed after convictions for two counts of incest in connection with discrete sexual acts performed on one familial victim). Based on the foregoing, multiple punishment was properly imposed upon Appellant for committing multiple, independent violations of Section 4302(b)(1).

The amendment did not alter the fact that Stehley was on notice of the criminal conduct charged, nor did it alter his defense strategy. See Commonwealth v. J.F., 800 A.2d 942, 945 (Pa. Super. 2002) (informations charging defendant with rape and other sexual offenses against minors was properly amended to change dates of majority of charges; neither additional charges nor different set of events was added to informations). Further, in light of the special difficulties in ascertaining specific dates in cases of ongoing sexual abuse, the Commonwealth is afforded a measure of latitude, particularly when the cases involve a young child.

Here, it was not error to allow the Commonwealth to amend the bill of information to extend the timeframe in which the incidents were alleged to have occurred by a period of one month, because the amendment did not change or add any charges brought against [a]ppellant, and therefore did not prejudice [a]ppellant as he was always on notice of the charges against him. Just as in [Commonwealth v. J.F., 800 A.2d 942 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied, 812 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 2002)], in the present case the Commonwealth amended the bill of information to "merely change[] the date" by a period of one month, and "neither additional charges nor a different set of events were added to the information . . . [and] the offenses set forth in the amendment[] involved the same . . . elements and the same factual situations as specified in the original information[]." [Id. at 945.]

Where the crimes specified in the original information involved the same basic elements and arose out of the same factual situation as the crime added by the amendment, the appellant is deemed to have been placed on notice regarding his alleged criminal conduct and no prejudice to defendant results. Commonwealth v. J.F., 800 A.2d 942, 945 (Pa.Super.2002).Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 897 A.2d 1218, 1222 (Pa.Super.2006) (citation modified).

Where the crimes specified in the original information involved the same basic elements and arose out of the same factual situation as the crime added by the amendment, the appellant is deemed to have been placed on notice regarding his alleged criminal conduct and no prejudice to defendant results. Commonwealth v. J.F., 800 A.2d 942, 945 (Pa.Super.2002). Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 897 A.2d 1218, 1222 (Pa.Super.2006) (citation modified).

Where the crimes specified in the original information involved the same basic elements and arose out of the same factual situation as the crime added by the amendment, the appellant is deemed to have been placed on notice regarding his alleged criminal conduct and no prejudice to defendant results. Commonwealth v. J.F., 800 A.2d 942, 945 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied, 571 Pa. 704, 812 A.2d 1228 (2002). ¶ 14 In the present case, the crimes specified in the original and amended informations clearly involved the same basic elements and evolved out of the same factual situation.

Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling counsel's objections. See Commonwealth v. J.F., 800 A.2d 942, 947 (Pa.Super. 2002) (finding trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting cross-examination questioning which was within scope of direct examination). ¶ 25 Appellant's final argument is that the trial court erred by permitting the Commonwealth to amend the bill of information regarding the charges at Criminal Complaint No. CP-26-CR-0001662-2003 after the Commonwealth presented its case-in-chief.