Com. v. Williams, E. ( 2017 )

J-S34045-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ELEANOR MONIQUE WILLIAMS,
Appellant No. 3184 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order September 14, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-52-CR-0000406-2015
BEFORE: BOWES, J., SOLANO, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED JULY 06, 2017
Appellant, Eleanor Monique Williams, appeals from the trial court’s
September 14, 2016 order denying her petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
We dismiss this appeal as moot.1
We take the relevant facts and procedural history of this case from the
trial court’s November 17, 2016 opinion and our independent review of the
certified record. On October 15, 2015, Appellant pleaded guilty to one count
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Counsel for Appellant has submitted an Anders brief and a petition to
withdraw as counsel averring that Appellant’s issue on appeal is wholly
frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). However, Anders
outlines the proper procedure for court-appointed counsel to withdraw on
direct appeal, and is therefore not implicated in this case. See Anders,
supra at 739. For reasons that we discuss more fully infra, we deny
counsel’s petition to withdraw at this juncture.
J-S34045-17
of failure to control or report dangerous fires.2 The charge stems from
Appellant’s starting of a fire at a residence, resulting in its destruction. On
that same day, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of not less than
eighty-six days nor more than twenty-four months less one day of
incarceration, followed by three years’ probation. The trial court gave
Appellant credit for eighty-six days’ time served, and she was released on
immediate parole.
On March 3, 2016, the trial court found Appellant in violation of her
parole/probation, based on her possession of two knives when she reported
to the probation office. The court remanded Appellant to the county
correctional facility for the balance of her term, until July 10, 2017, with
consideration for re-parole after serving a minimum term of one month of
incarceration. The court placed Appellant back on probation for a period of
three years, and gave her credit for fifteen days’ time served. On March 23,
2016, the court entered an order providing “[Appellant] is released on parole
effective immediately,” subject to certain terms and conditions, including
“[v]erification of a suitable parole plan.” (Order, 3/23/16). Appellant was
subsequently unable to obtain a suitable home plan. (See Trial Court
Opinion, 11/17/16, at unnumbered page 1).
____________________________________________
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(e)(1).
-2-
J-S34045-17
On July 26, 2016, Appellant filed the instant, counseled petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, averring that she remained incarcerated in county
prison against her will; that she was unable to obtain a home plan
satisfactory to the probation office; and that she has not received any
assistance in finding a suitable home plan. (See Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, 7/26/16, at unnumbered pages 1-2). The trial court held a hearing
on the petition on September 8, 2016, and entered its order denying it on
September 14, 2016. Appellant filed the instant, timely appeal on October
12, 2016.3 While this appeal was pending, on October 21, 2016, Appellant
was released from incarceration, and placed on re-parole. (See Petition in
Violation of Parole/Probation, 11/10/16; Anders Brief, at 6, 9).
On appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of her petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the court erred in failing to release
her from incarceration. (See Anders Brief, at 5).4 However, counsel for
Appellant observes that this issue is moot, because following the court’s
denial of the habeas petition, Appellant was released from incarceration.
(See id. at 6, 9). We agree with counsel that the issue is moot.
____________________________________________
3
Counsel for Appellant failed to file a court-ordered concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court
entered an opinion on November 17, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). In light
of our disposition of this appeal, we need not address this procedural defect.
4
The Commonwealth did not file a brief.
-3-
J-S34045-17
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus requests the petitioner’s
immediate release from prison based on his or her unlawful detention. See
Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365, 368–69 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied,
101 A.3d 787 (Pa. 2014). “Our standard of review of a trial court’s order
denying a petition for [a] writ of habeas corpus is limited to [an] abuse of
discretion.” Id. at 369 (citation omitted).
Preliminarily, however, we must address the propriety of this appeal.
“Generally, a case will be dismissed if at any stage of the judicial process it
is rendered moot.” Commonwealth v. Sloan, 907 A.2d 460, 465 (Pa.
2006) (citation omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1972(a)(4). A case 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.”
Commonwealth v. Nava, 966 A.2d 630, 633 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation
omitted).
Here, after Appellant filed the writ of habeas corpus seeking release
from incarceration based on her inability to comply with the court’s March
23, 2016 condition that she obtain a suitable home plan, Appellant was
released from prison. Thus, because Appellant is no longer incarcerated
pursuant to the challenged order, there is no meaningful relief that can be
granted. We therefore dismiss this appeal as moot.5
____________________________________________
5
The record reflects that Appellant was arrested in New York a few days
after she was released from incarceration, and that a second petition for
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-S34045-17
Appeal dismissed as moot. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/6/2017
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
violation of parole/probation was filed. (See Petition in Violation of
Parole/Probation, 11/10/16). It is unclear from the record whether the
continued assistance of counsel is required in connection with these
subsequent proceedings. Therefore, we deny counsel’s petition to withdraw,
without prejudice to her ability to file the appropriate petition in the trial
court.
-5-