reviews challenge in Pennsylvania

2026When a trial court reviews a challenge to the weight of the evidence, it must determine whether “notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny - 11 - J-S38004-25 justice.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 752 (Pa. 2000)).

2026When a trial court reviews a challenge to the weight of the evidence, it must determine whether “notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 752 (Pa. 2000)).

2018Conditions must be reasonable and must [ have ] support in the record warranting the imposition of such conditions; otherwise, the imposition of conditions constitutes an abuse of discretion. [ 16 ] Sabatine v. Zoning Hearing B [ d. ] of Washington T [ wp. ] , 651 A.2d 649 , 655 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). '[T]he Board is not required to support the imposition of conditions; rather, the opposite is true- property owners are required to show that the imposition of conditions was an abuse of discretion .' Leckey v. Lower Southampton T [ wp. ] Zoning Hearing B [ d. ], 864 A.2d 593 , 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004

2010In support, Borough Council directs us to Leckey v. Lower Southampton Township Zoning Hearing Board, 864 A.2d 593, 596 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004), in which this Court stated: Because, under the MPC, the Board, utilizing its grant of discretionary power to make a judgment, can impose conditions “it may deem” necessary, a court reviews a challenge to the reasonableness of those conditions; it does not determine whether there is substantial evidence, which is a “fact standard,” but whether those conditions constitute an abuse of discretion.

2025Initially, we recognize: It is well settled that when this Court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all the elements of the offense … beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re K.A.T., Jr., 69 A.3d 691, 696 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

2021It is well settled that when this Court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “we must determine whether the evidence - 15 - J-A13020-21 admitted at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all the elements of the offense . . . beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re K.A.T., Jr., 69 A.3d 691, 696 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

2018Conditions must be reasonable and must [ have ] support in the record warranting the imposition of such conditions; otherwise, the imposition of conditions constitutes an abuse of discretion. [ 16 ] Sabatine v. Zoning Hearing B [ d. ] of Washington T [ wp. ] , 651 A.2d 649 , 655 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). '[T]he Board is not required to support the imposition of conditions; rather, the opposite is true- property owners are required to show that the imposition of conditions was an abuse of discretion .' Leckey v. Lower Southampton T [ wp. ] Zoning Hearing B [ d. ], 864 A.2d 593 , 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004

2009Sabatine v. Zoning Hearing Board of Washington Township, 651 A.2d 649, 655 (Pa.Cmwlth.1994). “[TJhe [bjoard is not required to support the imposition of conditions; rather, the opposite is true-property owners are required to show that the imposition of conditions was an abuse of discretion.” [.Leckey v. Lower Southampton Township Zoning Hearing Bd., 864 A.2d 593, 596 (Pa. Cmwlth.2004) [(en banc).]] 10 ... a court reviews a challenge to the reasonableness of those conditions; it does not determine whether there is substantial evidence, which is a “fact standard,” but whether those conditions c

2025Commonwealth v. Davis, 241 A.3d 1160, 1177-78 (Pa.Super. ____________________________________________ 4 We have conducted our independent review cognizant of the fact that “upon entry of a guilty plea, a defendant waives all claims and defenses other than those sounding in the jurisdiction of the court, the validity of the plea, and what has been termed the legality of the sentence imposed.” Commonwealth v. Adams, 327 A.3d 667 , 669 (Pa.Super. 2024) (cleaned up).

2024Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213, 218 (Pa. 2006).

2024Commonwealth v. Brown, 911 A.2d 576, 582-83 (Pa. Super. 2006).

2024See Commonwealth v. Murray, 248 A.3d 557, 577 (Pa. Super. 2021).

2024Commonwealth v. Coniker, 290 A.3d 725, 733 (Pa. Super. 2023) ____________________________________________ 2 Additionally, after Mr. Scott was arrested on a bench warrant and sentenced, he sent the trial court a letter attacking its handling of his case. - 10 - J-S47020-23 (citations omitted).

2023See E.A.M. v. A.M.D., 173 A.3d 313, 316 (Pa. Super. 2017).

2023Commonwealth v. Cornelius, 180 A.3d 1256, 1262 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citing Commonwealth v. Kelly, 797 A.2d 925, 936 (Pa. Super. 2002)).

2023Commonwealth v. Cornelius, 180 A.3d 1256, 1262 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citing Commonwealth v. Kelly, 797 A.2d 925, 936 (Pa. Super. 2002)).

2022See Carey, 249 A.3d at 1223 .

2020When this Court reviews a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion, we are limited to determining “whether the suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.” Commonwealth v. Mbewe, 203 A.3d 983, 986 (Pa. Super. 2019).

2020Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949, 963 (Pa. Super. 2002).