close hearing in Pennsylvania

2023Gebler, supra (citing T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358 , 363 (Pa.Super. 2002)); Matter of Green, [ 650 A.2d 1072 , 1075 (Pa.Super. 1994)].

2023Gebler, supra (citing T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358, 363 (Pa.Super. 2002)); Matter of Green, [ 650 A.2d 1072, 1075 (Pa.Super. 1994)].

2023Gebler, supra (citing T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358 , 363 (Pa.Super. 2002)); Matter of Green, [ 650 A.2d 1072 , 1075 (Pa.Super. 1994)].

2023Gebler, supra (citing T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358, 363 (Pa.Super. 2002)); Matter of Green, [ 650 A.2d 1072, 1075 (Pa.Super. 1994)].

2020Jones v. Ott, 191 A.2d 782 , 791-92 (Pa. 2018); Commonwealth v. Powell, 956 A.2d 406, 422 (Pa. 2008) (defense counsel's failure to specifically object at the close of the instruction, particularly where the court concluded by questioning counsel if there is “anything additional either of counsel wish the court to charge,” renders the claim waived).5 Because we find that the record contains sufficient evidence for the conviction for firearm not to be carried without a license, and we are precluded from substituting our judgment for that of the jury, as fact-finder, Appellant is entitled to no r

2019See Commonwealth v. Powell, 956 A.2d 406, 422 (Pa. 2008) (defendant waived claim that trial court erred at trial for capital murder in not giving jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter, where defendant did not request instruction on involuntary manslaughter despite being asked by trial court if he had anything to add at close of jury charge); see also Commonwealth v. Betz, 664 A.2d 600 (Pa. Super. 1995).1 ____________________________________________ 1 Although we agree with the trial court and the Commonwealth that Thomas cannot now be heard to complain when no specific objection was mad

1981Butler v. Rundle, 429 Pa. 141, 149 , 239 A.2d 426, 430 (1968).

1981Butler v. Rundle, 429 Pa. 141, 149 , 239 A.2d 426, 430 (1968).

2021The Majority holds that the ZBA’s decision was timely because the unambiguous provisions of the Code governing its decision deadlines, when read together, “evince the intent of the drafters to allow an agreed-upon extension of time for creating the record at ZBA proceedings, before the ZBA’s decision must be rendered.”8 The Majority also notes that “the procedure posted on the ZBA website, stating the ZBA decision will be rendered within 45 days after the record is closed, is clearly aligned with the Code, which expressly permits an applicant to agree on the record to an extension of time.”9 F

2021Op. at 7. 9 Id. 10 Id. [J-22-2021] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 4 Although courts occasionally defer to municipalities’ interpretations of their ordinances, “this principle applies where the precise meaning of the contested provisions is uncertain, and not where they are clear and explicit in their language.” 11 Thus, absent ambiguity, “procedural provisions of zoning statutes must be rigidly adhered to.”12 Here, the Code provides: After the public hearing, the Board shall act . . . within forty-five (45) days of the Board hearing.

2021After the record is closed, the ZBA will issue a decision within 45 days.15 The ZBA Chairperson, in accordance with this procedure, stated at the close of the hearing: 11 Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 500 (Pa. 2006). 12 Relosky v. Sacco, 523 A.2d 1112, 1116 (Pa. 1987); accord 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b) (“When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.”). 13 PITTSBURGH ZONING CODE §§ 922.07.C, 922.09.D (emphasis added). 14 Id. § 923.02.C.1. 15 R.R. at 369a

2021After the record is closed, the ZBA will issue a decision within 45 days.15 The ZBA Chairperson, in accordance with this procedure, stated at the close of the hearing: 11 Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 500 (Pa. 2006). 12 Relosky v. Sacco, 523 A.2d 1112, 1116 (Pa. 1987); accord 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b) (“When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.”). 13 PITTSBURGH ZONING CODE §§ 922.07.C, 922.09.D (emphasis added). 14 Id. § 923.02.C.1. 15 R.R. at 369a

2021The law is unequivocal that “we are bound by the PCRA court’s credibility decisions.” Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d 701, 708 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc).4 Attorney Peppetti testified to being an experienced criminal defense attorney, who practiced criminal law since being licensed in 2004, and whose ____________________________________________ 4 At the close of the hearing, the court advised Appellant that his “argument has little to no merit, certainly not to overturn your conviction.” N.T., 10/11/18, at 63.

2021The court also advised Appellant’s counsel of its “intent in [granting partial relief for resentencing] for your client’s benefit.” Id.

2020See Medina I, 209 A.3d 475 (unpublished memorandum at **9-10); see also id. at *9 (suggesting that Medina may have raised a just reason to be permitted to withdraw his plea). ____________________________________________ 2 We refer to this decision as “Medina I.” -3- J-S04034-20 & J-S04035 The trial court conducted a hearing on May 2, 2019.3 At the close of the hearing, the trial court entered an order granting Medina’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

2019See Commonwealth v. Powell, 956 A.2d 406, 422 (Pa. 2008) (defendant waived claim that trial court erred at trial for capital murder in not giving jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter, where defendant did not request instruction on involuntary manslaughter despite being asked by trial court if he had anything to add at close of jury charge); see also Commonwealth v. Betz, 664 A.2d 600 (Pa. Super. 1995).1 ____________________________________________ 1 Although we agree with the trial court and the Commonwealth that Thomas cannot now be heard to complain when no specific objection was mad

2019Cf. Campbell , 86 A.3d at 349 (affirming determination of waiver because "near the close of the hearing, the trial court entertained argument regarding the parties' positions," and licensee raised some arguments but not others in response).

2016In re Hyman, 811 A.2d 605, 608 (Pa. Super. 2002). - 30 - J-A19017-16 At the close of the hearing, the orphans’ court judge placed his findings of facts and conclusions of law on the record.19 See 20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.1(a).20 The orphans’ court judge stated: Characteristically, [Dr. Malamut’s] report, issued April 3 of 2015, was comprehensive, detailed, and quite specific outlining the results of multiple tests, which I will not go over here; however, ____________________________________________ 19 See N.T., 10/8/2015, at 54–74. 20 Section 5512.1(a) provides: In all cases, the court shall consider

2003Coover, 591 A.2d at 350, 351 .

1997If the final hearing is not held within the three day period, or if the final decree is not filed within 24 hours after the close of the hearing, the injunction shall be deemed dissolved.” However, after review of Sociedad Comercializadora y De Servicios Unifrutti Traders Limitada, a/k/a Unifrutti Traders Limitada v. Quizada, 434 Pa. Super. 48, 59 , 641 A.2d 1193, 1197 (1993), we determined that appellant did not fall within the confines of Rule 1531(f)(1).

1997If the final hearing is not held within the three day period, or if the final decree is not filed within 24 hours after the close of the hearing, the injunction shall be deemed dissolved.” However, after review of Sociedad Comercializadora y De Servicios Unifrutti Traders Limitada, a/k/a Unifrutti Traders Limitada v. Quizada, 434 Pa. Super. 48, 59 , 641 A.2d 1193, 1197 (1993), we determined that appellant did not fall within the confines of Rule 1531(f)(1).