Com. v. Cunningham, J., Com. v. Cunningham, J. No. 2111 MDA 2015

In April 2013, Cunningham allegedly committed crimes in Colorado (including attempted second-degree murder) and fled; Colorado issued an arrest warrant.
Cunningham was arrested in Luzerne County, PA on July 15, 2015 on the Colorado warrant; arraigned July 16, 2015 and held on $1,000,000 bond while extradition to Colorado was pursued.
Cunningham filed a habeas petition (Oct. 22, 2015) alleging he had been held ~90 days without production of a Governor’s Warrant in violation of PA extradition statutes; the trial court initially ordered release on Oct. 23, 2015, but he was immediately rearrested on new fugitive charges.
After further litigation, the trial court (Dec. 2, 2015) granted Colorado’s petition for extradition and denied a stay; Cunningham appealed two trial-court orders (Nov. 13 and Dec. 2, 2015).
Following appeal filings, Cunningham was transferred to Colorado; appellate counsel filed Anders briefs and petitions to withdraw, which this Court found to substantially comply with Anders/Santiago standards.
The Superior Court concluded the appeals were moot because Cunningham had been extradited and therefore dismissed the appeals and granted counsel leave to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether detention beyond statutory time for production of a Governor’s Warrant required relief	Cunningham: detained beyond allowable statutory period under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act and not discharged before rearrest	Commonwealth: extradition procedure met required criteria; any challenge is rendered ineffectual after removal	Dismissed as moot because appellant was extradited; no effective relief possible
Whether Cunningham’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated at preliminary arraignment after rearrest	Cunningham: lacked counsel at preliminary arraignment following rearrest, violating constitutional rights	Commonwealth: extradition court’s narrow review limits issues to statutory/extradition criteria; procedural defects do not affect jurisdiction once removed	Moot — appellate review unavailable after extradition; court found no non-frivolous issues

Commonwealth v. Caffrey, 508 A.2d 322 (Pa. Super. 1986) (appeal challenging extradition is moot if accused is returned to demanding state)
Commonwealth v. Carlos, 341 A.2d 71 (Pa. 1975) (demanding state is not the appropriate forum to test legality of extradition after transfer)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief requirements for court-appointed counsel seeking withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural requirements for Anders withdrawal and appellate review explained)
Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (requirement to notify client when counsel files Anders brief and motion to withdraw)