With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and prejudicial and the effect of this error was a violation of Appellant’s due process rights. In response, the trial court explains Detective Peterman’s reading of Mr. Moore’s March 22, 2005, statement corroborated the fact that Mr. Moore identified Appellant as the shooter and as Mr. Moore’s credibility had been attacked by defense counsel, it did not err in allowing Detective Peterman to read the statement. Trial Court Opinion, filed 6/26/07, at 6-7. ¶ 13 We note that Appellant devotes just two pages of his forty-eight page brief to this issue and cites to no case law in support of it. Appellant’s failure to properly develop this claim and to set forth applicable case law to advance it renders this issue also waived. See Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 868 A.2d 498, 516 (Pa.Super.2005) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Ellis, 700 A.2d 948, 957

A: 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
B: holding that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority in support of an argument in his appellate brief
C: holding that plaintiff failed to adequately brief an issue where he failed to cite any legal authority for the proposition
D: holding that an issue is waived where the defendant failed to develop an argument in his appellate brief and cited no authority
B.