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 appellant, acting pro se, sought to vacate a 1999 district court order that dismissed criminal charges against him and released him from probation. This motion was related to a 1998 judgment where the appellant was found guilty of two misdemeanors, served his sentence, and had previously appealed the judgment and sentence, which this Court affirmed. The appellant contested the 1999 order, arguing it should not have been issued while his appeal was pending (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• June 1998: District Court entered a judgment and sentence finding the appellant guilty of two misdemeanors (para 2).
• 1999: District Court issued an order dismissing criminal charges against the appellant and releasing him from probation (para 2).
• July 2015: District Court denied a motion to vacate the 1999 order (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court should not have issued the 1999 dismissal order while his appeal from the underlying judgment was pending (para 2).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in issuing a 1999 order dismissing criminal charges and releasing the appellant from probation while his appeal was pending.
• Whether the current appeal is moot because there is no remedy that could afford actual relief to the appellant (para 2).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed (para 3).

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Roderick T. Kennedy, Michael E. Vigil, and J. Miles Hanisee, concluded that the appeal was moot as no actual controversy existed and an appellate ruling would not grant the appellant any actual relief. The Court found no authority supporting the appellant's position that a court may not address situations where a defendant has served his full sentence prior to the disposition of his appeal. Furthermore, the Court identified no collateral consequences that would allow the appeal to be addressed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal (para 2).