J-S13023-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CRYSTAL MARIE ANTHONY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 807 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 15, 2024

In the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County Criminal Division at 

No(s): 

CP-16-CR-0000518-2015

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED: August 30, 2024

Crystal Marie Anthony (“Anthony”) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence imposed by the Clarion County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”) 

ordering her to remain on parole through her maximum date of March 6, 2024. 

On appeal, Anthony challenges the legality of her sentence based upon the 

trial court’s failure to give her credit for time spent at an inpatient drug and 

alcohol rehabilitation facility. Because Anthony is no longer serving her 

sentence in this case, we dismiss this appeal as moot. 

This court previously set forth the factual and procedural history as 

follows:

[Anthony] pled guilty to forgery and, on February 17, 2016, 

the trial court sentenced her to six months of probation at docket 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13023-24

- 2 -

number CP-16-CR-518-2015. On the same date, but at docket 

number CP-16-CR-519-2015, the trial court also sentenced 

[Anthony] to a consecutive term of six months of probation for 

possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, 

forgery or subterfuge pursuant to 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(12). 

While on probation for forgery at docket number CP-16-CR-518-

2015, [Anthony] admitted she was in technical violation of the 

terms of her probation. By order entered on March 24, 2016, the 

trial court resentenced [Anthony] to 30 days to two years of 

imprisonment, followed by a consecutive term of three years of 

probation. The trial court gave [Anthony] 30 days’ credit for time 

served. 

Commonwealth v. Anthony, 457 WDA 2022, 2023 WL 2947495, *1 (Pa. 

Super. Apr. 14, 2023) (non-precedential memorandum).

Anthony was found in technical violation of her parole in April 2016 and 

June 2018. Each time, the trial court resentenced Anthony to a term of 

imprisonment with consecutive probation sentences. While on probation, 

Anthony admitted to violations, and on June 18, 2020, the trial court revoked 

Anthony’s probation and resentenced her to serve twenty-nine days to two 

years less one day in county jail, followed by one year of probation. The trial 

court credited Anthony with 28 days of time served. The trial court further 

found that Anthony’s drug and alcohol assessment recommended inpatient 

drug and alcohol treatment. Therefore, the trial court ordered Anthony be 

released on “June 19, 2020, directly to ARC Manor staff,” and stated that 

Anthony “must successfully complete all recommended treatment and is not 

permitted to decline any level of care.” Sentencing Order, 6/18/2020, at 1-2 

(unnumbered). 
J-S13023-24

- 3 -

On March 24, 2022, Anthony again admitted to technical violations of 

her parole. The trial court revoked Anthony’s parole, recommitted her to serve 

the balance of her sentence in prison, revoked her street time, and gave her 

seventy-one days of credit for time served. At this hearing, Anthony’s 

attorney asked the trial court to credit Anthony’s time spent in inpatient 

treatment at ARC Manor. The trial court denied Anthony’s request, stating it 

was “not willing to do that.” N.T., 3/24/2022, at 6. 

Anthony appealed, arguing, inter alia, that she should have been given 

credit for time served in court-ordered drug and alcohol rehabilitation. On 

appeal, this Court vacated Anthony’s “judgment of sentence and remand[ed]

for additional proceedings, wherein [Anthony] is permitted to present 

evidence pertaining to her inpatient rehabilitation at [ARC] Manor and whether 

her time spent there constitutes custody.” Anthony, 2023 WL 2947495, *4. 

This Court noted that there was no evidence of record to establish whether 

the inpatient facility “restricted or restrained” Anthony’s freedom or if Anthony 

voluntarily entered the program. Id.

On remand, the trial court held a hearing on May 11, 2023, at which the 

ARC Manor discharge summary was entered into evidence and Anthony 

testified. Notably, in the discharge summary, ARC Manor indicated Anthony 

was admitted on June 19, 2020, and discharged on July 10, 2020, a total of 

twenty-one days. Anthony’s Exhibit A, at 1-2. 
J-S13023-24

- 4 -

On June 5, 2023, the trial court denied Anthony’s request for credit for 

time served. Subsequently, on February 15, 2024, the trial court ordered 

Anthony to remain on parole until her maximum date—March 6, 2024, and 

vacated the remaining probation terms as she will have completed supervision 

as of March 6, 2024. Anthony filed the instant appeal.1 On appeal, she 

presents the following issue for our review: “[Whether] the [t]rial [c]ourt erred 

in not crediting [Anthony] with time served for the time previously spent in 

court-ordered inpatient drug and alcohol treatment?” Anthony’s Brief at 4. 

Generally, appellate courts in Pennsylvania will not decide moot 

questions. Commonwealth v. Smith, 486 A.2d 445, 447 (Pa. Super. 1984). 

“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.” Commonwealth v. Nava, 

966 A.2d 630, 633 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted). “[A] question raised 

on appeal may become moot by events which occur after the appeal was filed.” 

Commonwealth v. Kelly, 418 A.2d 387, 388 (Pa. Super. 1980). This Court 

has held that if an appellant has completed serving her sentence and she is 

no longer subject to any direct criminal consequences, an appeal challenging 

the sentence imposed is moot and incapable of review. See Commonwealth 

____________________________________________

1 Notably, Anthony initially filed a premature appeal after the trial court denied 

her request for credit for time served, but before the trial court imposed a

sentence. However, after this Court issued a rule to show cause as to why 

the appeal should not be quashed, the trial court imposed the new revocation 

sentence. This Court found the appeal was timely from this new sentence and 

discharged the rule.
J-S13023-24

- 5 -

v. Schmohl, 975 A.2d 1144, 1149 (Pa. Super. 2009) (stating, “[u]nder 

Pennsylvania law, if [a]ppellant completed the aggregate maximum term of 

imprisonment while his appeal was pending, he would not be subjected to any 

direct criminal consequences and his challenge to the legality of his sentence 

... would be moot and incapable of review”).

Here, the record reflects that Anthony completed serving her sentence 

on March 6, 2024. See Order, 2/15/2024 (stating that Anthony must remain 

on parole “until her max date of March 6, 2024,” and Anthony “will have 

completed her supervision requirements as of March 6, 2024”). Therefore, 

she is no longer serving the sentence she attempts to challenge and is not 

suffering any consequences because of the sentence. Accordingly, this appeal 

is moot. See Commonwealth v. King, 786 A.2d 993, 996-97 (Pa. Super. 

2001) (holding that a defendant’s challenge to the legality of his probationary 

sentence was moot where the sentence imposed had already been served and 

there were no criminal or civil consequences); see also Commonwealth v. 

Gillins, 302 A.3d 154, 162 (Pa. Super. 2023) (noting that if a defendant 

“chooses to attack only his sentence, and not the underlying conviction, the 

expiration of the sentence renders the case moot unless the petitioner can 
J-S13023-24

- 6 -

demonstrate collateral consequences adequate to satisfy the case-orcontroversy requirement”).2

Appeal dismissed.

DATE: 8/30/2024

____________________________________________

2 Although there are several exceptions to the mootness doctrine, none 

apply to this case. Specifically,

[t]his Court will decide questions that otherwise have been 

rendered moot when one or more of the following exceptions to 

the mootness doctrine apply: 1) the case involves a question of 

great public importance, 2) the question presented is capable of 

repetition and apt to elude appellate review, or 3) a party to the 

controversy will suffer some detriment due to the decision of the 

trial court.

Nava, 966 A.2d at 633 (citation omitted).