discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Diaz Nevertheless, the fact the trial court denied Diaz’s post-sentence motion, in which he challenged the weight of the evidence as an alternative to his sufficiency claim, substantiates an inference that the court did not believe the verdict “shock[ed] one’s sense of justice.” Rosser, supra, 135 A.3d at 1090 : See Commonwealth v. Upshur, 764 A.2d 69, 73 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc) (holding weight claim, which trial court failed to address in opinion, was still reviewable on appeal because court’s denial of post-sentence motion signified court’s dismissal of claim), appeal dismissed as…

discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Wolf, P. See Commonwealth v. Upshur, 764 A.2d 69, 73 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 782 A.2d 538 (Pa. 2001) (holding weight claim was still reviewable even where the trial court did not specifically address the claim but denied the post- sentence motion).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Keys (2×) See Commonwealth v. Barnes, 310 Pa.Super. 480 , 456 A.2d 1087 (1983); see also Commonwealth v. Upshur, 764 A.2d 69 (Pa.Super.2000) (en bane) (plurality), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 566 Pa. 589 , 782 A.2d 538 (2001).