conclude whether the trial court assumed that appellant or the Commonwealth had the burden of proving that appellant was amenable to the juvenile system. In any event, assuming arguendo that appellant is correct in asserting that the Commonwealth had the burden of proving that appellant should not be sentenced by the juvenile system, and, therefore, that the trial court erred in placing the burden of proof on appellant, we must still conclude that the trial court’s denial of appellant’s request for a transfer was not an abuse of discretion. We have reviewed the record and the trial court’s opinion and find that the trial court carefully scrutinized appellant’s personal make-up, previous history and the nature and circumstances of the crimes committed by him. See Morningwake, supra (<HOLDING>). Based on the information presented, the trial
holding that before denying petition trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and state specific reasons for denying the petition holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellants motion for change of judge where the appellant failed to demonstrate actual bias holding that the trial court must consider these factors in denying appellants petition to transfer prior to trial holding the trial court is required to make a determination on impairment of access prior to trial holding that trial court must consider both statutory and nonstatutory mitigating factors