From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Nguyen

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Jun 12, 2019
298 Or. App. 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2019)

Summary

In Nguyen, as in this case, the defendant challenged special conditions of probation on the ground that they had not been announced in open court at sentencing.

Summary of this case from State v. Bates

Opinion

A165577

06-12-2019

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Amanda T. NGUYEN, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Anna Belais, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Anna Belais, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Hadlock, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

PER CURIAM In this criminal appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s imposition of several special conditions of probation asserting that they were not pronounced in open court. At sentencing, the court announced that defendant would be subject to general conditions of probation as well as "the special condition of the drug package," but did not specify what special conditions constituted the "drug package." The state responds that defendant’s appeal is moot because, since the entry of the judgment imposing the special conditions of probation defendant challenges on appeal, the court has entered a new judgment (following a hearing) in which it re-imposed those same special conditions, and defendant has not appealed that new judgment. In those circumstances, the state argues, "even if the judgment presently before the court were to be reversed and remanded, the new judgment imposing the same conditions would remain intact." We agree with the state that, in those circumstances, defendant’s appeal is moot.

"An appeal is moot when a court decision will no longer have a practical effect on the rights of the parties." Brownstone Homes Condo. Assn. v. Brownstone Forest Hts., 358 Or. 26, 30, 361 P.3d 1 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, in light of the unchallenged judgment in which the court re-imposed the same special probation conditions that defendant challenges on appeal, a decision of this court regarding the propriety of the way by which those conditions were initially imposed would have no practical effect because, in any event, defendant would continue to be subject to the identical conditions. Furthermore, "when changed circumstances render an appeal moot, it will be dismissed." Id. (citing State v. Hemenway , 353 Or. 498, 501, 302 P.3d 413 (2013) ). Thus, we agree with the state that defendant’s appeal is subject to dismissal as moot.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

State v. Nguyen

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Jun 12, 2019
298 Or. App. 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2019)

In Nguyen, as in this case, the defendant challenged special conditions of probation on the ground that they had not been announced in open court at sentencing.

Summary of this case from State v. Bates

In Nguyen, the state effectively suggested that an oral pronouncement of probation conditions at a later probation-violation hearing might have cured the error complained of on appeal; it went on to suggest that the case was moot because the defendant failed to establish that the error was repeated at the probation-violation hearing, which he needed to have done by appealing the resulting judgment.

Summary of this case from State v. Bates

noting that a trial court had, in addition to imposing general probation conditions, imposed "the special condition of the drug package"

Summary of this case from State v. Macy
Case details for

State v. Nguyen

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AMANDA T. NGUYEN…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Date published: Jun 12, 2019

Citations

298 Or. App. 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2019)
445 P.3d 390

Citing Cases

State v. Bates

The state asserts that, because defendant did not appeal the judgment continuing probation, "any relief that…

State v. Flores

We accepted the state's argument that defendant's challenge to conditions of probation was moot because of…