Commonwealth v. Coniker – Pa. Super. – 2-15-23 – precedential
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A29038-22o%20-%20105435515212837900.pdf?cb=1
Held: Because criminal conviction could have collateral consequences – such as damage to his reputation -- the fact that defendant had completed his sentence did not render the case moot. Defendant permitted to appeal.
From the opinion:
A case becomes moot when there is no longer an actual case or controversy to be resolved. In the Interest of Y.W.-B., 265 A.3d 602, 612 n.8 (Pa. 2021); e.g., Commonwealth v. Beaudoin, 182 A.3d 1009, 1010 (dismissing appeal as moot based on defendant’s death, a discretionary decision by this Court).
However, the collateral consequences doctrine recognizes that a person with a criminal conviction may face legal consequences beyond serving the sentence imposed for the conviction. Commonwealth v. Markley, 501 A.2d 1137, 1141–42 (Pa. Super. 1985) (citing Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968)). Notably, adverse consequences are presumed; “a criminal case is moot only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.” Id. at 1141 (quoting Sibron, 392 U.S. at 57). . . . .
He. . .speculated that these convictions could damage his reputation; see Markley, 501 A.2d at 1140, 1141 n.4; see also Pa. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (recognizing an inherent right to reputation). . . .Given the possibility that Coniker’s convictions will damage his reputation, we conclude that he could suffer collateral consequences as a result. As such, we agree with Coniker that the collateral consequences doctrine applies and his cases are not moot. Markey, supra. Therefore, we will address substantive issues.
--
