J-S63043-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: J. R., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2294 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order July 10, 2015

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division

at No(s): CP-51-JV-0080168-2007

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD,*J.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 16, 2016

The Commonwealth, appeals from the order in the Court of Common 

Pleas of Philadelphia County granting the petition of Appellee, J.R., for writ 

of habeas corpus and releasing him from custody. We dismiss the appeal as 

moot.

J.R. was born in May 1995. On April 7, 2008, he was adjudicated 

delinquent by the trial court after he admitted to indecent assault graded as 

a misdemeanor,1and he was committed to Abraxes Academy, a secure 

juvenile detention facility. Pursuant to statute, J.R. was to serve the lesser 

of four years or the total he could have been sentenced by the court had he 

been convicted as an adult. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6353(a). As an adult, the 

maximum term J.R. could have received for indecent assault was five years’ 

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1

J.R. admitted to sexually assaulting his nine-year-old sister when he was 

twelve years of age.
J-S63043-16

- 2 -

imprisonment under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1104. The Juvenile Code allows for a 

juvenile’s initial commitment to be extended or modified to “effectuate the 

original purpose for which the order was entered.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6353(a).

J.R. remained in custody for over seven years. During that time, 

multiple review hearings were held by the trial court and J.R. was moved to 

several different juvenile facilities that were determined to better meet his 

rehabilitative needs. On May 13, 2015, the Philadelphia Public Defenders’ 

Office filed the instant habeas corpus petition on J.R.’s behalf. After 

conducting a hearing on June 11, 2015, the trial court issued an order 

granting J.R.’s habeas corpus petition and released him from custody on 

June 16, 2015. The Commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration, and 

the trial court vacated the June 16, 2015 order pending a hearing regarding 

the Commonwealth’s reconsideration motion. After a hearing, the court 

denied the Commonwealth’s motion and again granted J.R.’s habeas corpus

motion on July 10, 2015. 

The Commonwealth filed the instant timely appeal and a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. The trial court filed a 

responsive opinion.

The Commonwealth raises a single issue on appeal: 

Whether the lower court erred in granting [J.R.’s] petition 

for habeas corpus claiming he was being held in violation 

of 42 Pa. C.S. § 6353 on the grounds that (1) there 

allegedly was no hearing prior to expiration of the four 

years of commitment, and (2) the Commonwealth had not 

filed an application to extend, where: beginning March 12, 
J-S63043-16

- 3 -

2008, hearings were held concerning [J.R.’s] commitment, 

in which [J.R.] was present with notice and represented by 

counsel, and it was decided by the court that his 

commitment would continue; and the statute does not 

require the Commonwealth to file an application?

Commonwealth’s Brief at 3.

The Commonwealth argues that the trial court erred by granting J.R.’s 

petition for habeas corpus because the review hearings held by the trial 

court in this case were sufficient to extend J.R.’s initial sentence as required 

by 42 Pa.C.S. § 6353. J.R. disagrees by averring that the trial court aptly 

found that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that his 

sentence had been properly modified under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6353 during the 

review hearings. Further, J.R. asserts that the instant appeal is moot 

because he is now twenty-one years of age, as of May 2016, and therefore 

he is no longer subject to court supervision as a juvenile. We agree with 

J.R. and dismiss this appeal as moot. 

Pennsylvania Code divests the juvenile court of jurisdiction after an 

individual turns twenty-one years of age:

§ 630. Loss of Court Jurisdiction

When the juvenile has attained the age of twenty-one, the 

court shall enter an order terminating court supervision of 

the juvenile.

237 Pa. Code § 630.

It is well settled that:

Generally, an actual claim or controversy must be present 

at all stages of the judicial process for the case to be 
J-S63043-16

- 4 -

actionable or reviewable. . . . If events occur to eliminate 

the claim or controversy at any stage in the process, the 

case becomes moot. An issue can become moot during 

the pendency of an appeal due to an intervening change in 

the facts of the case or due to an intervening change in the 

applicable law. An 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.

Deutsche Bank Nat. Co. v. Butler, 868 A.2d 574, 577 (Pa. Super. 2005) 

(citations and quotation marks omitted). 

This court has emphasized that “[i]t is impermissible for courts to 

render purely advisory opinions. In other words, judgments or decrees to 

which no effect can be given will not, in most cases, be entered by this 

Court.” Rivera v. Pa. Dep’t. of Corr., 837 A.2d 525, 527-28 (Pa. Super. 

2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, if an event 

occurs which causes an appellate court to be unable to grant any relief, the 

appeal will generally be dismissed. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 486 

A.2d 445, 447 (Pa. Super. 1984). However, “[e]xceptions to this principle 

are made where the conduct complained of is capable of repetition yet likely 

to evade review, where the case involves issues important to the public 

interest or where a party will suffer some detriment without the court’s 

decision.” Pub. Defender’s Office of Venango Cnty. v. Venango Cnty. 

Ct. of Common Pleas, 893 A.2d 1275, 1279-80 (Pa. 2006) (citation 

omitted). 

In this case, the Commonwealth’s appeal was rendered moot when 

J.R. turned twenty-one years of age and is therefore no longer subject to 
J-S63043-16

- 5 -

court jurisdiction as a juvenile. See 237 Pa. Code § 630. Thus, any opinion 

issued by this Court would be rendered purely advisory and therefore we 

decline to address the factually specific issue presented by the 

Commonwealth in the instant case. See Rivera, 837 A.2d at 527-28. 

Further, we conclude that no exception to the mootness doctrine applies 

because the Commonwealth could likely appeal a purported improper 

modification of a juvenile sentence prior to the issue becoming moot. See 

Pub. Defender’s Office of Venango Cnty., 837 A.2d at 1279-80. 

Accordingly, we find the matter before this Court moot and we dismiss the 

appeal.

Appeal dismissed as moot. 

 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/16/2016

 
J-S63043-16

- 6 -