State v. Morter

508 P.3d 598, 319 Or. App. 454
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedMay 4, 2022
DocketA174655
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 508 P.3d 598 (State v. Morter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Morter, 508 P.3d 598, 319 Or. App. 454 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Submitted April 11, appeals dismissed as moot May 4, 2022

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MACKENZIE AUSTIN MORTER, Defendant-Appellant. Yamhill County Circuit Court 18CR64414, 19CR11056; A174655 (Control), A174656 508 P3d 598

John L. Collins, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Mark Kimbrell, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Powers, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Hellman, Judge. PER CURIAM Appeals dismissed as moot. Cite as 319 Or App 454 (2022) 455

PER CURIAM In these consolidated cases concerning convic- tions for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), defendant appeals from judgments revoking his probation and sentencing him to 30 days in jail in one case and 45 days in jail in the other case, arguing that the trial court plainly erred in accepting his admissions to numerous pro- bation violations. The state asserts that the case is moot, given that the jail sentences have long since been served. In response, defendant argues that the stigma associated with probation revocations is essentially the same as the stigma associated with a conviction or a contempt sanction. We disagree that this leads to a conclusion that the case is not moot; the stigma of DUII convictions is essentially the same whether or not a defendant serves 30 or 45 days in jail on those convictions. This court has consistently held that cases in this posture are moot. See, e.g., State v. Smith (A134313), 223 Or App 250, 195 P3d 467 (2008) (dismissing appeal from probation-violation judgment that was mooted by completion of sentence); State v. Dick, 169 Or App 649, 10 P3d 315 (2000) (same); cf., Dunn v. Board of Parole, 310 Or App 249, 487 P3d 410, rev den, 368 Or 702 (2021) (challenge to post-prison supervision jail sanction mooted by comple- tion of sanction). Appeals dismissed as moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. England
Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2024
State v. Cureno
324 Or. App. 652 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2023)
State v. Cline
508 P.3d 598 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
508 P.3d 598, 319 Or. App. 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-morter-orctapp-2022.