J-S25040-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MARVASE J. SPELL,
Appellant No. 2012 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered November 12, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-02-CR-0008612-2014
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED APRIL 28, 2015
Appellant, Marvase J. Spell, appeals pro se from the order granting the
Commonwealth’s motion for nolle prosequi. He raises issues that are
substantive arguments against the sole charge brought against him.
Therefore, we quash.
On August 11, 2014, Appellant was charged with one count of unsworn
falsification to authorities1 in connection with his application for a license to
carry a firearm. Appellant filed several motions to dismiss, which the court
declined to address prior to trial. On November 12, 2014, at the time of the
non-jury trial, the Commonwealth presented a motion for nolle prosequi.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904(a)(1).
J-S25040-15
The court granted the motion and the charge was dismissed. Appellant
timely filed a direct appeal.
It is well-settled that:
A case is ‘moot’ when a determination is sought on a
matter which, when rendered, cannot have any practical effect
on the existing controversy. Stated differently, [a]n issue before
a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter
an order that has any legal force or effect.
Commonwealth v. Nava, 966 A.2d 630, 632-33 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(citations omitted).
Here, the Commonwealth nolle prossed the sole charge against
Appellant.2 Accordingly, this matter is moot. See Nava, supra at 632-33.
Appeal quashed.
____________________________________________
2
(See Order, 11/12/14, at 1). The trial court explained that “the relief
[Appellant] sought . . . the dismissal of the charges, was provided on
November 12, 2014. . . . [T]he dismissal was absolute [and] . . . [he] no
longer faced criminal charges at any level arising out of the incident [that]
led to the original charges. . . . There were no conditions placed upon [him].
. . .” (Trial Court Opinion, 1/15/15, at 2-3, 5).
Furthermore, the Commonwealth acknowledged that “[t]here is
certainly no suggestion in the record that the Commonwealth has any
intention of refilling [sic] these charges, having plainly stated that it does
not wish to proceed to trial.” (Commonwealth’s Brief, at 17) (record citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
-2-
J-S25040-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/28/2015
-3-