inappropriately pursued this matter by way of a writ of prohibition. Specifically, it suggests that there were other available appellate avenues of relief to the Public Defender and that a writ of prohibition is only proper when such other avenues are unavailable. Second, the AOPC argues that because the underlying trial in this matter proceeded and concluded following our denial of a stay, the issue is now moot as there is no live case or controversy that this Court’s decision, one way or another, will impact. We address, first, the issue of mootness. The AOPC correctly points out the axiomatic principle that, in general, courts will not decide moot questions. See Sierra Club v. Pennsylvania PUC, 702 A.2d 1131 (1996), affirmed, Sierra Club v. PUC, 557 Pa. 11, 731 A.2d 133 (1999) (<HOLDING>). In this regard, our Court has stated that:
holding that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review not merely at the time the complaint is filed holding that the requirement of an actual case or controversy is a jurisdictional prerequisite under the constitution holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy holding that courts will dismiss an appeal as moot unless an actual case or controversy exists at all stages of the judicial or administrative process holding continuing controversy not moot