J-S30031-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
KEVIN S. MINES :
:
Appellant : No. 559 EDA 2023
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 7, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0330991-1983
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED JANUARY 31, 2024
Kevin S. Mines (“Mines”) appeals pro se from the trial court’s order
denying his “Petition to Compel Discovery.” Upon review, we quash.
The relevant factual and procedural history of this case follows. A jury
convicted Mines of first-degree murder in 1983. The trial court sentenced him
to life in prison. Mines’s direct appeal was unsuccessful, as were his numerous
state and federal collateral attacks on his conviction. Mines filed a pro se
petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§
9541-9546, on May 2, 2018. The PCRA court dismissed the petition as
untimely, and this Court affirmed the dismissal. See Commonwealth v.
Mines, 270 A.3d 1123 (Pa. Super. 2021) (unpublished memorandum). Mines
filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on
December 30, 2021.
J-S30031-23
While his petition for allowance of appeal was pending, Mines filed a
“Petition to Compel Discovery” in the PCRA court, seeking over forty items
related to his 1983 conviction. See Petition to Compel Discovery, 4/5/22, at
1-9. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Mines’s petition for allowance
of appeal June 7, 2022. See Order, No. 540 EAL 2021, 6/7/22. The PCRA
court then issued an opinion and order denying Mines’s petition to compel
discovery. See, e.g., Order, 2/7/23. The instant appeal followed.1
On appeal, Mines raises the following questions:
I. Did the [PCRA] court have subject-matter jurisdiction over
[Mines’s] motion to compel discovery?
II. Did the PCRA judge abuse his discretion in covertly,
arbitrarily, and retroactively transforming Mines’s
“Mandamus” petition into a PCRA petition?
III. Did the PCRA judge abuse his discretion in failing to give
[Mines] notice of intent to dismiss required under Rule
907(1)?
IV. Does [Mines] have a due process and equal protection right
to discovery material especially where he has never been
privy to discovery material and related transcript(s) of voir
dire and jury instructions for [forty] years?
Mines’s Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization and bolding omitted).2
____________________________________________
1 The PCRA court did not order Mines to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement
and did not issue an additional opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
2 Mines’s first and second issues are less than clear.
In his brief, Mines claims
to have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court. See Mines’s Brief at 5. Mines contends the Court forwarded it to the
PCRA court and this “triggered” the court’s order denying “post-conviction
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-S30031-23
Mines argues the PCRA court abused its discretion in denying his petition
to compel discovery. Id. at 6-11.3 The Commonwealth counters the appeal
should be quashed as moot. Commonwealth Brief at 6. Based on our review,
we likewise conclude this appeal is moot. It is well-settled an issue “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, 633 (Pa. Super.
2009); see also Commonwealth v. Barr, 79 A.3d 668, 677 n. 15 (Pa. Super.
2013) (holding that this Court will not decide moot or abstract questions).
Here, the record reflects the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied leave to
appeal the dismissal of Mines’s 2018 PCRA petition. Mines has filed no
subsequent PCRA petitions to invoke the lower court’s jurisdiction. Thus, there
is no case pending before any court in which Mines can compel discovery. Cf.
supra n.3 and Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(E)(2) (providing that for PCRA proceedings,
except for limited circumstances that are inapplicable here, “no discovery shall
be permitted at any stage of the proceedings, except upon leave of court after
a showing of exceptional circumstances”). Thus, Mines’s request is moot. To
____________________________________________
relief.” Id. There is no petition for a writ of mandamus contained in the
certified record and the appealed-from PCRA court order did not deny a PCRA
petition. See Order, 2/7/23.
3 Mines argues the PCRA court should have treated his petition to compel
discovery as a post-sentence motion. See Mines’s Brief at 6-11. However,
Mines filed his petition to compel discovery in 2022, long after the ten-day
period to file post-sentence motions expired. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1).
-3-
J-S30031-23
the extent that Mines may be seeking to compel discovery as the basis for a
future PCRA petition, we have long held, “[t]his Court may not provide
advisory opinions to address issues that may arise in future cases.”
Commonwealth v. Enix, 192 A.3d 78, 84 n. 5 (Pa. Super. 2018).4
Appeal quashed.
Date: 1/31/2024
____________________________________________
4 Additionally, as the Commonwealth has observed, the PCRA court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over Mines’s discovery motion because his petition
for allowance of appeal was pending at the Supreme Court when he filed it.
See Commonwealth’s Brief at 6-7; Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a); Commonwealth v.
Beatty, 207 A.3d 957, 961-64 (Pa. Super. 2019) (applying Rule 1701 to PCRA
filings).
-4-