Issues challenging the trial court's authority to impose a condition on a defendant's probation or parole involve the legality of the sentence. Commonwealth v. Nava, 966 A.2d 630, 632 (Pa. Super. 2009). "An assertion that the trial court erroneously imposed an illegal sentence is a question of law and, as such, our scope of review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo." Commonwealth v. Williams, 980 A.2d 667, 672 (Pa. Super. 2009).
"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).
Commonwealth v. Nava, 966 A.2d 630, 632-633 (Pa. Super. 2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Moreover, "[a]n 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). "Under Pennsylvania law, if Appellant 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."
That was an illegal condition and, like an illegal sentence, may be raised at any time. See Hernandez v. State, 613 S.W.2d 287, 288 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (op. on reh'g); see, e.g., United States v. Phommachanh, 91 F.3d 1383, 1385 (10th Cir.1996) (collecting cases and holding that federal law “does not authorize a district court to deport a defendant-alien as a condition of supervised release, but that it instead authorizes a district court to impose as a condition of supervised release that a defendant be delivered to the INS for deportation proceedings consistent with the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA)”); United States v. Abushaar, 761 F.2d 954, 959–61 (3d Cir.1985) (ordering a defendant to leave the country as a condition of probation is an order of deportation; state and federal judges do not have the authority to enter such an order); Commonwealth v. Nava, 966 A.2d 630, 635–36 (Pa.Super.2009) (trial judge's order that illegal alien remove himself from the state as a condition of parole was itself “illegal” and therefore stricken from an otherwise valid judgment); People v. Antonio–Antimo, 29 P.3d 298, 302–03 (Colo.2000) (“neither federal nor state courts have authority or jurisdiction over immigration matters, including the authority to order a person deported”; therefore, appellate court would excise illegal probation condition that called for self-deportation and uphold the rest of the plea bargain); Sanchez v. State, 234 Ga.App. 809, 508 S.E.2d 185, 187 (1998) (“Ordering a defendant to leave the country as a condition of probation constitutes an order of deportation”; it is illegal for a state trial judge to make such an order a condition of probation and to revoke a probationer for failing to self-deport; defendant's failure to object to probation condition or revocation was excused because “[i]t would seriously affect the fairness and integrity of the judicial system
We conclude his appeal from Judge Hertzberg's June 7, 2022 order is not moot. "[A]n 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). If this Court concludes that Judge Hertzberg should have opened the default judgment and stayed the proceedings
Because the probation condition the Commonwealth seeks to have reimposed has in fact been imposed in this case as well as in another case, and, indeed, the sentence the Commonwealth appealed from is no longer the operative sentence, we dismiss this appeal as moot. See Commonwealth v. Kelly, 418 A.2d 387, 388 (Pa. Super. 1980) (stating that "a question raised on appeal may become moot by events which occur after the appeal was filed"); Commonwealth v. Nava, 966 A.2d 630, 633 (Pa. Super. 2009) (stating that 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. Smith, 486 A.2d 445, 447 (Pa. Super. 1984) (stating that "[b]ecause the existence of an actual controversy is essential to appellate jurisdiction, if, pending an appeal, an event occurs which renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant any relief, the appeal will be dismissed"); Commonwealth v. Anthony, 2024 WL 4003232 (Pa. Super. 2024) (unpublished memorandum).,
" Commonwealth v. Nava, 966 A.2d 630, 633 (Pa. Super. 2009); see also Commonwealth v. Barr, 79 A.3d 668, 677 n. 15 (Pa. Super. 2013) (holding that this Court will not decide moot or abstract questions). Here, the record reflects the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied leave to appeal the dismissal of Mines's 2018 PCRA petition. Mines has filed no subsequent PCRA petitions to invoke the lower court's jurisdiction.
A claim before the court is moot if, in ruling upon the issue, the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force of effect. See Commonwealth v. Nava, 966 A.2d 630, [633] (Pa. Super. 2009). [Partello] is challenging the legality of the two sentences for which he was [originally] incarcerated.
Given that the court discontinued the trial after the Commonwealth subsequently filed its written notice of appeal, we deem this issue moot. See Commonwealth v. Nava, 966 A.2d 630 (Pa.Super. 2009) (stating issue before court is moot if in ruling upon issue court cannot enter order that has any legal force or effect). Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.