below, the PCRA court’s culpability does not negate Appellant’s duty to assert his rights. With respect to the third prong, we conclude that Appellant was not diligent in attempting to achieve PCRA relief before the expiration of his sentence. In the months following Appellant’s PCRA hearing, he never petitioned the court for a decision on his claims; although his counsel did file a petition seeking payment for his PCRA work. Nearly a year after the hearing, he was brought before the PCRA court for a probation violation, after which he was resentenced and given 455 days of credit time. At that point, in March of 2014, Appellant was aware that his sentence would expire in August of 2014; however, he still did not inform the court or request expedited review. See Turner, 80 A.3d at 769 (<HOLDING>). Although the delay is not attributable to
holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment holding that turner was not entitled to relief where she failed to move for expedited consideration of her claim or raise it earlier in her sentence to ensure it was reviewed within the time limitations of the pcra holding that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding her retaliation claim because she failed to offer any evidence of a causal relationship between her involvement in protected activity and the adverse employment action holding that the employee was acting within the course of her employment when she died while returning from the workrelated session because her death occurred on a public highway which was brought within the scope of her employment by her employers requirement that she attend training at the state police academy holding the petitioner abandoned her cat claim when she failed to raise it in her initial appellate brief