the appeals at 787 WDA 2011 and 788 WDA 2011. We grant the petition. Herein, the Honorable Kim Berkeley Clark presided over the adjudication, the disposition hearing, the evidentiary hearing, and the disposition review hearings. For the sake of consistency, we shall refer to the jurist as "the juvenile court.” 2 . In the omitted footnote, Appellant states: "Each of these questions alleges violations of both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.” Appellant’s Brief at 3 n. 2. 3 . We held in In the Interest of A.P., 421 Pa.Super. 141, 617 A.2d 764 (1992) (en banc), that the Post-Conviction Relief Act, which is the remedy for adults seeking post-conviction relief, is unavailable to a juvenile. See also In Interest of DelSignore, 249 Pa.Super. 149, 375 A.2d 803 (1977) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, in the case sub judice,
holding that once the statute is found to be divisible the court must look to the charging papers and judgment of conviction to determine if the actual crime of which defendant was convicted was a crime of violence but emphasizing that the court is not to examine the particular facts underlying the conviction holding that a juvenile  has no entitlement to brady materials before the transfer hearing proceeding holding that post conviction hearing act is not available to juvenile proceeding since the child is not convicted of a crime holding that juvenile adjudications may not be used for impeachment purposes because the disposition of a juvenile does not constitute a criminal conviction holding that a juvenile has a right to a voluntariness hearing in a transfer proceeding