AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted on June 15, 2007, for aggravated driving while intoxicated (fourth offense), resisting, evading or obstructing an officer, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving while license suspended or revoked. He was sentenced to two years, five months, and twenty-nine days, with all but ten months suspended, and placed on five years of supervised probation after release from incarceration. The probation began on September 16, 2008, and was set to expire on September 15, 2013. The State filed a petition to revoke the Defendant's probation on July 13, 2010, and an amended petition on January 18, 2011. After admitting to violating probation conditions, the Defendant's probation was revoked on May 13, 2011, and he was sentenced to imprisonment followed by a new five-year term of probation. The Defendant appealed the decision, arguing that he was improperly denied credit for time spent on probation before it was revoked. However, after a second probation violation, the Defendant was sentenced to serve the remainder of his sentence incarcerated, without a probation term, and completed his sentence on September 10, 2012.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly denied him credit for the time he spent on probation before it was revoked.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant's sentence was not illegal because the five-year cap on probation does not apply to post-revocation terms of probation imposed under the relevant statute.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing to credit the Defendant with the time he spent on probation before it was revoked.
• Whether the appeal is moot given that the Defendant has served his sentence in its entirety.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Defendant's appeal as moot.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael D. Bustamante, Roderick T. Kennedy, and Timothy L. Garcia, concluded that the appeal was moot because the Defendant had already served his sentence in its entirety, and no ruling could grant him any actual relief. The Court noted that the Defendant's second probation revocation and the completion of his sentence while incarcerated removed any actual controversy. Furthermore, the Court found that the Defendant's case did not present an issue of substantial public interest or an issue capable of repetition yet evading review, as the circumstances leading to the mootness of the appeal were specific to the Defendant's subsequent probation violation. Therefore, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to decide the appeal and dismissed it as moot.