Kimberly Streit Vogelsberg and Kasper C. Shirer won in State v. Ward, No. 116,545 (Kan. June 19, 2020), reversing the COA's dismissal of a probation revocation appeal in a Franklin County criminal threat prosecution. After probation revocation, Mr. Ward filed a motion pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507 challenging the revocation, which the district court summarily denied. While on appeal from denial, the COA ordered Mr. Ward to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as moot because Mr. Ward had completed the sentence. Mr. Ward stipulated that he had completed the sentence, but argued that his appeal could still have an effect in future cases.
The KSC cited its own decision decided the same day holding that "completion of a sentence does not necessarily render a case moot" and remanded to allow the COA to make an appropriate determination:
In his petition for review, Ward again points to the distinguishing factor between his case and Montgomery—that he challenges the probation revocation, not just the sanction—and argues that this means a judgment here will affect a future sentence and, therefore, affect his rights, including future sentencing decisions and when he can legally possess a firearm or expunge his conviction.
Today we published State v. Roat. Therein, we have outlined the law governing mootness and explained that the completion of a sentence does not necessarily render a case moot. We disavow any use of such a bright-line rule and direct courts to carefully analyze whether dismissal would affect an asserted right. The Court of Appeals did not have the advantage of Roat when it rejected Ward's appeal. We remand this case to the Court of Appeals so that it may reconsider the arguments that Ward presented in his response to the panel's show cause order under the guidance provided in Roat.
I expect we will have additional litigation on how the mootness doctrine applies in these circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment