J-S68023-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
SHERMAN COLEMAN, :
:
Appellant : No. 40 WDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order entered December 7, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0000275-1988,
CP-02-CR-0000279-1988, CP-02-CR-0000281-1988
BEFORE: SHOGAN, SOLANO, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.
FILED: December 15, 2016
Because Appellant has received the orders he requested through his
motion to compel,1 I would dismiss this appeal from the denial of a motion
to compel those orders as being moot.
The mootness doctrine requires that an actual case or
controversy must be extant at all stages of review…. Where the
issues in a case are moot, any opinion issued would be merely
advisory and, therefore, inappropriate. An issue before a court
is moot when a determination is sought on a matter which, when
rendered, cannot have any practical effect on the existing
controversy.
1
See Appellant’s Brief at Exhibit B.
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S68023-16
In re 2014 Allegheny Cty. Investigating Grand Jury, No. 950 WDA
2015, 2016 WL 4486856, at *1 (Pa. Super. 2016) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).
Here, the Department of Court Records provided to Appellant the
sentencing orders in its possession. Thus, there is nothing left for this Court
to decide at this juncture. See In re 2014 Allegheny Cty. Investigating
Grand Jury, supra (holding that an appeal from an order denying access to
documents is moot where the appellant acknowledges it has gained access
to those documents). Accordingly, this appeal is moot and should be
dismissed on that basis.
-2-