J-A15034-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CHAUNTAE DAMAR JEFFRIES : : Appellant : No. 1100 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 3, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0005079-2021
BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: OCTOBER 7, 2025
Chauntae Damar Jeffries appeals1 from the July 3, 2024 judgment of
sentence of 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment imposed after he pled guilty to one
count of retail theft.2 On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred
in dismissing his post-sentence motion as untimely and challenges the legality
of his sentence based upon the trial court’s failure to award him 172 days
credit for time-served while under a detainer in York County. Because
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Although Appellant purports to appeal from the trial court’s July 25, 2024 order denying his post-sentence motion as untimely, “[i]n a criminal action, appeal properly lies from the judgment of sentence made final by the denial of post-sentence motions.” See Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408, 410 n.2 (Pa.Super. 2001) (en banc), appeal denied, 800 A.2d 932 (Pa. 2002).
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3929(a)(3). J-A15034-25
Appellant is no longer serving his sentence in this case, we dismiss this appeal
as moot.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case, as gleaned from
the certified record, are as follows: Appellant was arrested on September 15,
2021 in York County for retail theft. At the time of Appellant’s arrest, he was
serving probation in Westmoreland County for a crime that occurred in 2017.
Following this arrest, Appellant spent one day in the York County prison before
posting bail. On October 29, 2021, York County issued a bench warrant
against Appellant because he failed to appear at the preliminary hearing for
retail theft. On April 18, 2022, Appellant was charged for retail theft in Mercer
County. Westmoreland County filed an amended motion to revoke the
Appellant’s probation on May 17, 2022.
Thereafter, Appellant was arrested on October 26, 2023 in Allegheny
County for another retail theft that occurred in August 2023. Appellant was
held in connection with this arrest in the Allegheny County jail. Following this
arrest, York County’s bench warrant served as a detainer. In November 2023,
Appellant was again arrested in Allegheny County in connection with yet
another retail theft charge. On November 28, 2023, Westmoreland County
vacated its bench warrant and remanded Appellant pending the resolution of
the charges in York, Allegheny, and Mercer counties. The two Allegheny
County retail theft charges were resolved on January 23, 2024, through the
Allegheny County “Phoenix Program.” Westmoreland County ultimately
-2- J-A15034-25
elected not to revoke Appellant’s probation and closed its interest in this
matter. As noted, on July 3, 2024, Appellant pled guilty to retail theft in the
York County matter and was sentenced to 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment.
On July 15, 2024, Appellant’s counsel filed a post-sentence motion on
his behalf in the PACFile e-file system, and attached the trial court’s order to
the motion as an exhibit. The York County Clerk of Courts rejected Appellant’s
post-sentence motion because the order was not incorporated into the motion
itself and a certificate of service was not attached. Appellant ultimately filed
a post-sentence motion in the proper format on July 19, 2024, past the 10-
day deadline. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(1) (“a written post-sentence motion shall
be filed no later than 10 days after imposition of sentence.”). Therein,
Appellant argued that he was entitled to 172 days credit for time-served in
other Counties while under a detainer in York County. See Post Sentence
Motion, 7/19/24 at 4-5.
As noted, the trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion as
untimely on July 25, 2024. On July 26, 2024, Appellant filed a petition to have
his post-sentence motion considered nunc pro tunc. The trial court denied
Appellant’s request on July 30, 2024. This timely appeal followed on August
1, 2024.3
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
3 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-3- J-A15034-25
1. Whether the [trial court] erred finding Appellant’s post-sentence motions as untimely when the York County Clerk of Court[s] refused to accept [Appellant’s] post-sentence motion due to purported formatting deficiencies[?]
2. Whether [Appellant] is entitled to credit time for time spent incarcerated in other County jails while under a detainer in York County?
Appellant’s brief at 4.
Preliminarily, we note that Commonwealth indicates in its brief that is
agrees with Appellant that the trial court improperly denied Appellant’s post-
sentence motion as untimely. See Commonwealth’s brief at 4, n.1.
Nonetheless, to the extent Appellant challenges the imposition of time-credit,
we find that this claim is moot.
A claim based upon the failure to give credit for time served is a
challenge implicating the legality of one’s sentence. Commonwealth v.
Tobin, 89 A.3d 663, 669 (Pa.Super. 2014). “A claim challenging the legality
of sentence is appealable as of right.” Commonwealth v. Clark, 885 A.2d
1030, 1032 (Pa.Super. 2005). “Our standard of review over such questions
is de novo and the scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Gibbs,
181 A.3d 1165, 1166 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted).
Here, the record reflects that Appellant was sentenced on July 3, 2024
to 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment. Following the trial court’s denial of
Appellant’s petition for nunc pro tunc consideration of his post-sentence
motion – on July 30, 2024 – the trial court ordered Appellant to report to the
-4- J-A15034-25
York County Prison on Friday, August 2, 2024. See order, 7/30/24 at ¶ 3
(emphasis added). On August 1, 2024, Appellant filed a notice of appeal and
petition to delay his incarceration while his appeal was pending. The trial
court denied Appellant’s petition on August 5, 2024. Appellant failed to appear
at the York County Prison on August 2, 2024 as ordered, and following the
issuance of a bench warrant, he ultimately began serving his sentence on or
around September 6, 2024. According to the York County docket, Appellant
completed serving his sentence and was released from custody on March 14,
2025.
This Court has long recognized that where an appellant has completed
serving his sentence, he is no longer subject to any direct criminal
consequences and any challenge to the sentence imposed is moot and
incapable of review. Commonwealth v. Schmohl, 975 A.2d 1144, 1149
(Pa.Super. 2009) (stating, “[u]nder Pennsylvania law, if Appellant completed
the aggregate maximum term of imprisonment while his appeal was pending,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A15034-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CHAUNTAE DAMAR JEFFRIES : : Appellant : No. 1100 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 3, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0005079-2021
BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: OCTOBER 7, 2025
Chauntae Damar Jeffries appeals1 from the July 3, 2024 judgment of
sentence of 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment imposed after he pled guilty to one
count of retail theft.2 On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred
in dismissing his post-sentence motion as untimely and challenges the legality
of his sentence based upon the trial court’s failure to award him 172 days
credit for time-served while under a detainer in York County. Because
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Although Appellant purports to appeal from the trial court’s July 25, 2024 order denying his post-sentence motion as untimely, “[i]n a criminal action, appeal properly lies from the judgment of sentence made final by the denial of post-sentence motions.” See Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408, 410 n.2 (Pa.Super. 2001) (en banc), appeal denied, 800 A.2d 932 (Pa. 2002).
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3929(a)(3). J-A15034-25
Appellant is no longer serving his sentence in this case, we dismiss this appeal
as moot.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case, as gleaned from
the certified record, are as follows: Appellant was arrested on September 15,
2021 in York County for retail theft. At the time of Appellant’s arrest, he was
serving probation in Westmoreland County for a crime that occurred in 2017.
Following this arrest, Appellant spent one day in the York County prison before
posting bail. On October 29, 2021, York County issued a bench warrant
against Appellant because he failed to appear at the preliminary hearing for
retail theft. On April 18, 2022, Appellant was charged for retail theft in Mercer
County. Westmoreland County filed an amended motion to revoke the
Appellant’s probation on May 17, 2022.
Thereafter, Appellant was arrested on October 26, 2023 in Allegheny
County for another retail theft that occurred in August 2023. Appellant was
held in connection with this arrest in the Allegheny County jail. Following this
arrest, York County’s bench warrant served as a detainer. In November 2023,
Appellant was again arrested in Allegheny County in connection with yet
another retail theft charge. On November 28, 2023, Westmoreland County
vacated its bench warrant and remanded Appellant pending the resolution of
the charges in York, Allegheny, and Mercer counties. The two Allegheny
County retail theft charges were resolved on January 23, 2024, through the
Allegheny County “Phoenix Program.” Westmoreland County ultimately
-2- J-A15034-25
elected not to revoke Appellant’s probation and closed its interest in this
matter. As noted, on July 3, 2024, Appellant pled guilty to retail theft in the
York County matter and was sentenced to 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment.
On July 15, 2024, Appellant’s counsel filed a post-sentence motion on
his behalf in the PACFile e-file system, and attached the trial court’s order to
the motion as an exhibit. The York County Clerk of Courts rejected Appellant’s
post-sentence motion because the order was not incorporated into the motion
itself and a certificate of service was not attached. Appellant ultimately filed
a post-sentence motion in the proper format on July 19, 2024, past the 10-
day deadline. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(1) (“a written post-sentence motion shall
be filed no later than 10 days after imposition of sentence.”). Therein,
Appellant argued that he was entitled to 172 days credit for time-served in
other Counties while under a detainer in York County. See Post Sentence
Motion, 7/19/24 at 4-5.
As noted, the trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion as
untimely on July 25, 2024. On July 26, 2024, Appellant filed a petition to have
his post-sentence motion considered nunc pro tunc. The trial court denied
Appellant’s request on July 30, 2024. This timely appeal followed on August
1, 2024.3
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
3 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-3- J-A15034-25
1. Whether the [trial court] erred finding Appellant’s post-sentence motions as untimely when the York County Clerk of Court[s] refused to accept [Appellant’s] post-sentence motion due to purported formatting deficiencies[?]
2. Whether [Appellant] is entitled to credit time for time spent incarcerated in other County jails while under a detainer in York County?
Appellant’s brief at 4.
Preliminarily, we note that Commonwealth indicates in its brief that is
agrees with Appellant that the trial court improperly denied Appellant’s post-
sentence motion as untimely. See Commonwealth’s brief at 4, n.1.
Nonetheless, to the extent Appellant challenges the imposition of time-credit,
we find that this claim is moot.
A claim based upon the failure to give credit for time served is a
challenge implicating the legality of one’s sentence. Commonwealth v.
Tobin, 89 A.3d 663, 669 (Pa.Super. 2014). “A claim challenging the legality
of sentence is appealable as of right.” Commonwealth v. Clark, 885 A.2d
1030, 1032 (Pa.Super. 2005). “Our standard of review over such questions
is de novo and the scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Gibbs,
181 A.3d 1165, 1166 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted).
Here, the record reflects that Appellant was sentenced on July 3, 2024
to 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment. Following the trial court’s denial of
Appellant’s petition for nunc pro tunc consideration of his post-sentence
motion – on July 30, 2024 – the trial court ordered Appellant to report to the
-4- J-A15034-25
York County Prison on Friday, August 2, 2024. See order, 7/30/24 at ¶ 3
(emphasis added). On August 1, 2024, Appellant filed a notice of appeal and
petition to delay his incarceration while his appeal was pending. The trial
court denied Appellant’s petition on August 5, 2024. Appellant failed to appear
at the York County Prison on August 2, 2024 as ordered, and following the
issuance of a bench warrant, he ultimately began serving his sentence on or
around September 6, 2024. According to the York County docket, Appellant
completed serving his sentence and was released from custody on March 14,
2025.
This Court has long recognized that where an appellant has completed
serving his sentence, he is no longer subject to any direct criminal
consequences and any challenge to the sentence imposed is moot and
incapable of review. Commonwealth v. Schmohl, 975 A.2d 1144, 1149
(Pa.Super. 2009) (stating, “[u]nder 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.”); see also Commonwealth v. King, 786 A.2d 993, 996–997
(Pa.Super. 2001) (holding that a defendant’s challenge to the legality of his
sentence was moot where the sentence imposed had already been served and
there were no criminal or civil consequences), appeal denied, 812 A.2d
-5- J-A15034-25
1228 (Pa. 2002). As a result, Appellant’s claims on appeal are moot and
incapable of review.4, 5
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 10/07/2025
4 Although there are several exceptions to the mootness doctrine, none apply
to this case. Specifically,
[t]his Court will decide questions that otherwise have been rendered moot when one or more of the following exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: 1) the case involves a question of great public importance, 2) the question presented is capable of repetition and apt to elude appellate review, or 3) a party to the controversy will suffer some detriment due to the decision of the trial court.
Commonwealth v. Nava, 966 A.2d 630, 633 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citation omitted).
5 However, the legality of an expired sentence may be attacked where there
continues to be collateral consequences. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Carter, 523 A.2d 779, 781 (Pa.Super. 1987) (refusing to find an appellant’s challenge to his probation revocation moot because his poor performance on supervision could potentially show up on future pre-sentence investigation reports). Here, Appellant only challenges the award of time credit in this case, which has no bearing on future sentences. He does not argue that he may continue to suffer collateral consequences, either civil or criminal, that will continue to affect him.
-6-