Com. v. McKeever, V.
Com. v. McKeever v. No. 754 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 26, 2017Background
- Victor McKeever was arrested in Pennsylvania on a Nassau County, New York fugitive warrant and New York sought his extradition on multiple drug and conspiracy charges.
- McKeever filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Pennsylvania to block extradition; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, heard identity/fingerprint verification from the Commonwealth, and denied the habeas petition and ordered extradition.
- McKeever timely appealed and applied for a stay of extradition pending appeal; the trial court denied the stay and the Pennsylvania Superior Court briefly issued then lifted a temporary stay, ultimately denying the stay application.
- McKeever was extradited to New York before the Superior Court decided the merits of his appeal; he later sought remand alleging after-discovered evidence but the Superior Court denied remand.
- The Superior Court concluded McKeever’s appeal was moot because his only requested relief (preventing extradition) was no longer possible and McKeever failed to demonstrate any applicable exception to mootness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal of the extradition order is moot after McKeever was extradited | McKeever: Not moot because he filed a stay application and exceptions (Sibron) apply | Commonwealth: Moot because extradition occurred; court cannot return him to PA or grant meaningful relief | Held: Appeal dismissed as moot — no practical relief available |
| Whether filing a stay application prevents mootness | McKeever: Filing the stay preserves review (cites Caffrey footnote) | Commonwealth: Filing a stay does not automatically prevent mootness; stay must be properly supported | Held: Filing a stay did not bar mootness because McKeever’s stay application was deficient and was denied |
| Whether Sibron exceptions to mootness apply (continuing controversy or collateral consequences) | McKeever: First Sibron exception (couldn’t obtain review before change) and second (collateral consequences) preserve the appeal | Commonwealth: Sibron exceptions inapplicable — they address completed criminal sentences/convictions, not extradition orders; no continuing Pennsylvania custody or concrete collateral consequences from an untried extradition | Held: Sibron exceptions do not apply; controversy is not continuing and collateral-consequence theory is inapposite here |
| Whether McKeever exhausted remedies after the stay denial | McKeever: Implicitly relies on procedures used | Commonwealth: McKeever failed to seek reconsideration or appeal stay denial to Supreme Court | Held: McKeever’s failure to pursue available remedies further undercuts his mootness arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 585 Pa. 196, 888 A.2d 655 (Pa. 2005) (courts do not issue advisory opinions; case-or-controversy requirement)
- Burke ex rel. Burke v. Indep. Blue Cross, 103 A.3d 1267 (Pa. 2014) (mootness doctrine discussion cited)
- In re Gross, 476 Pa. 203, 382 A.2d 116 (Pa. 1978) (dismissing as moot where relief could no longer be granted)
- Caffrey, 508 A.2d 322 (Pa. Super. 1986) (appeal of extradition quashed as moot where appellant extradited; footnote noting a stay could preserve review)
- Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (recognized limited exceptions to mootness for completed sentences)
- Mistich v. Commonwealth, Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 863 A.2d 116 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (summarizing Sibron exceptions)
- Maritrans G.P., Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, 573 A.2d 1001 (Pa. 1990) (stay factors: merits, irreparable harm, harm to others, public interest)
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 79 A.3d 1195 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussing Rule 1732 stay standards)