at trial failed to sufficiently establish. Though the Commonwealth did not object to Appellant’s defective 1925(b) statement on this issue, the trial court indicated in its Opinion that Appellant’s failure to list any reasons he believes that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charges created a situation in which this issue is too ambiguous to be effectively reviewed by the trial court and should be dismissed. Trial Court Opinion, filed June 26, 2007, at 7. As such, in light of Flores, supra, we find Appellant has waived this issue. ¶ 12 In his fourth issue, Appellant claims the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a detective’s reading of a statement made by Dante Moore that had already been entered into evidence, because the second reading was both cumul per.1997) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 14 Appellant’s second, third, and fifth
holding that an appellate brief is deficient per the missouri rules of court where it fails to cite authority for an argument or fails to specify why such a citation is unavailable holding that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority in support of an argument in his appellate brief holding waiver results if an appellant fails to properly develop an issue or cite to legal authority to support his contention in his appellate brief holding that plaintiff failed to adequately brief an issue where he failed to cite any legal authority for the proposition holding that an issue is waived where the defendant failed to develop an argument in his appellate brief and cited no authority