J-S03018-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

DAVID W. CHILCOTE 

Appellant

v.

CHERYL STEBERGER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1188 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered August 2, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Civil Division at 

No(s): CI-23-04060

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: MAY 6, 2024

Appellant David W. Chilcote appeals pro se from the order denying his 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Appellant alleges that the trial 

court erred by denying his petition without a hearing and failing to file a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. After careful review, we remand with instructions 

and retain jurisdiction.

By way of background, Appellant was extradited from the State of 

Maryland to the Lancaster County Prison1to face pending criminal charges in 

Lancaster County. On June 8, 2023, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ 

of habeas corpus, compassionate release. The trial court denied Appellant’s 

petition without a hearing on August 2, 2023. Appellant subsequently filed a 

____________________________________________

1 Appellee Cheryl Steberger is the warden of the Lancaster County Prison.
J-S03018-24

- 2 -

pro se petition for rule to show cause, which the trial court denied on August 

18, 2023.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on August 24, 2023. The trial 

court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on 

appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).2 Appellant failed to comply with the 

trial court’s order. The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion concluding that 

Appellant waived any issues for appeal by failing to file a Rule 1925(b) 

statement. See Trial Ct. Op., 10/18/23, at 2.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues:

1. Did the Commonwealth violate legislative law by dismissing 

Appellant’s writ of habeas corpus without a hearing?

2. Does the holding of Appellant without trial, without meaningful 

representation, and with Appellant claiming his innocence, 

constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 

United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution?

3. Did the [trial] court violate [the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure], 210 Pa. Code and section, when [it] failed to 

writ[sic] an opinion for [its] order?

Appellant’s Brief at 1, 2, and 6 (formatting altered).

Initially, we must determine whether Appellant’s underlying issue is 

moot. This Court has held the following pertaining to the mootness doctrine:

As a general rule, an actual case or controversy must exist at all 

stages of the judicial process, or a case will be dismissed as moot. 

____________________________________________

2 We note that the trial court’s order directing Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) 

statement did not specify that the statement needed to be served on the trial 

judge or “that any issue not properly included in the [Rule 1925(b)] statement 

. . . shall be deemed waived.” Compare Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iv) (some 

formatting altered) with Trial Ct. Order, 8/30/23.
J-S03018-24

- 3 -

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. In that case, an opinion 

of this Court is rendered advisory in nature. 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.

We may address mootness sua sponte, as we generally cannot 

decide moot or abstract questions, nor can we enter a judgment 

or decree to which effect cannot be given.

M.B.S. v. W.E., 232 A.3d 922, 927 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations omitted and 

formatting altered). In the context of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 

a case becomes moot when the petitioner is no longer in custody of the person 

from whom he or she seeks release. Commonwealth ex rel. Yambo v. 

Jennings, 286 A.2d 909, 911-12 (Pa. Super. 1971). In determining whether 

a person remains in custody, we note that this Court may take judicial notice 

of other proceedings involving the same parties. Hvizdak v. Linn, 190 A.3d 

1213, 1218 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2018). 

In the instant case, while this appeal was pending, Appellant entered a 

negotiated guilty plea to eight counts each of burglary, criminal trespass, and 

criminal mischief3in his Lancaster County criminal case. See

Commonwealth v. Chilcote, CP-36-CR-0002187-2023. On February 26, 

2024, the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas imposed an agreed-upon 

sentence of five years’ probation for each count. It is unclear from the criminal 

docket whether the sentences run concurrently or consecutively. However, 

____________________________________________

3 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3502(a)(4), 3503(a)(1)(ii), and 3304(a)(5), respectively.
J-S03018-24

- 4 -

the criminal docket reflects that Appellant received credit for time served from 

March 31, 2020 through the date of sentencing and was to be paroled 

“immediately.” Id.

On this record, it appears that Appellant may have been released from 

custody while this appeal was pending, which could render this appeal seeking 

habeas corpus relief moot. However, the record before us is inconclusive. 

Therefore, we are constrained to remand this case for further proceedings.

On remand, the trial court shall supplement this record with pertinent 

documentation, and may conduct proceedings if deemed necessary in order 

to inform this Court whether Appellant remains in the custody of the Lancaster 

County Prison for the reasons giving rise to the instant appeal. See Jennings, 

286 A.2d at 912 (noting that a habeas case “becomes moot when the 

petitioner is no longer in custody of the person from whom he or she seeks 

release”); see also Hvizdak, 190 A.3d at 1218 n.1 (explaining that courts 

may take judicial notice of other proceedings involving the same parties). The 

trial court shall file its supplement to this record within forty-five days of this 

memorandum.

Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction retained.