Miranda1 warning in Pennsylvania

2023See Commonwealth’s Statement in Compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 311(D), 7/12/22; see also Commonwealth v. Williams 165 A.3d 994 , 995 n. 1 (Pa. Super. 2017) (noting that the Commonwealth may appeal an interlocutory order suppressing evidence when it provides a certification within its appeal that the order substantially handicaps the prosecution) (citation omitted).

2021On this point, I agree with Justice Wecht that Agent Peacock’s assuaging of appellant’s culpability, in addition to his failure to advise appellant of the charges against him, leads to the conclusion the Commonwealth failed to prove appellant “truly understood the ‘full dangers and disadvantages of’ waiving his right to counsel or 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 I also reiterate the majority’s point that “this Court may take a different view when presented with an analogous claim under the Pennsylvania Constitution[.]” Majority Opinion at 13. that those risks were adequately expla

2021On this point, I agree with Justice Wecht that Agent Peacock’s assuaging of appellant’s culpability, in addition to his failure to advise appellant of the charges against him, leads to the conclusion the Commonwealth failed to prove appellant “truly understood the ‘full dangers and disadvantages of’ waiving his right to counsel or 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 I also reiterate the majority’s point that “this Court may take a different view when presented with an analogous claim under the Pennsylvania Constitution[.]” Majority Opinion at 13. that those risks were adequately expla

2015See also Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001 , 1003– 1004 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“In order to develop a claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence properly, an appellant must specifically discuss the elements of the crime and identify those which he alleges the Commonwealth failed to prove” and failure to do so results in waiver.). -4- J-A34029-14 Heading “C” purports to raise an issue regarding Miranda1 warnings.