Opinion
10-86-03551B; CA A66149 (Control), 10-86-03551X; CA A66233, 10-86-03551; CA A66370
Argued and submitted December 30, 1992
CA A66149 and CA A66233 dismissed as moot; CA A66370 affirmed May 19, 1993
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County.
Jack Mattison, Judge.
Irene B. Taylor, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.
Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents. On the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Carol J. Fredrick, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
PER CURIAM
CA A66149 and CA A66233 dismissed as moot; CA A66370 affirmed.
In CA A66149 and CA A66233, defendant appeals from an order that revoked his probation and executed a previously suspended sentence. ORS 138.040; ORS 138.053 (1)(f), (3). He argues that his probation was void and that the trial court erred in revoking it. He also argues that the court failed to advise him of his right to counsel in the probation revocation proceeding. The state asks us to dismiss the appeal as moot, because defendant has served the executed sentence and was discharged from parole. State v. Neidenbach, 300 Or. 176, 178, 708 P.2d 355 (1985). Defendant does not oppose the state's request for dismissal or identify any collateral consequences that might derive from the order if not vacated. See State v. Lincoln, 5 Or. App. 138, 483 P.2d 92 (1971). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals from that order as moot.
Defendant also appeals in CA A66370 from an order dismissing what purports to be a civil action against a deputy district attorney. His assignments relating to that dismissal do not require discussion.
CA A66149 and CA A66233 dismissed as moot; CA A66370 affirmed.