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, a four-time DWI offender, was sentenced to imprisonment and probation after pleading guilty to aggravated DWI and driving while license suspended or revoked. After violating probation conditions, his probation was revoked, and he was resentenced to imprisonment followed by a new term of probation. The Defendant appealed the legality of his probation term, arguing it exceeded statutory limits. However, he completed his sentence and was discharged from probation during the appeal process.

Procedural History

• April 5, 2011: The district court revoked the Defendant's probation for violating conditions, sentencing him to imprisonment and a new five-year term of probation.
• February 29, 2012: After another probation violation, the district court resentenced the Defendant to imprisonment, followed by an unsatisfactory discharge from probation.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court's imposition of a new five-year probation term upon revocation was illegal, exceeding the statutory maximum period for probation and potentially extending indefinitely.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the sentence was not illegal because the statutory cap on probation periods does not apply to post-revocation probation terms imposed under specific DWI sentencing provisions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's imposition of a new five-year term of probation upon revocation exceeded statutory limits and was therefore illegal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot, determining that no actual controversy existed since the Defendant had completed his sentence and was discharged from probation, and the appeal would not grant any actual relief.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge James J. Wechsler with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Michael E. Vigil concurring, concluded the appeal was moot because the Defendant had already served his sentence in full and had been discharged from probation. The Court found that the Defendant's probation term, being less than thirteen months, did not exceed the statutory five-year cap and noted that the Defendant did not allege any adverse collateral consequences due to the length of his probationary term. The Court also determined that the issue raised was not of substantial public interest nor capable of repetition yet evading review, as it involved a narrow question of statutory interpretation applicable to a small group of offenders. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to decide the moot appeal.