Opinion
A173063
03-09-2022
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Steven Dewayne WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Andrew D. Robinson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services filed the briefs for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Andrew D. Robinson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services filed the briefs for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before James, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.
PER CURIAM Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of one count each of felon in possession of a restricted weapon, fourth-degree assault, harassment, and interference with making a report. Defendant's seventh and eighth assignments of error are foreclosed by State v. Austin , 316 Or. App. 56, 501 P.3d 1136 (2021), and State v. Gomez , 310 Or. App. 693, 485 P.3d 314 (2021). In defendant's first through sixth assignments of error, defendant challenges special conditions of probation that were imposed outside of defendant's presence. We review for errors of law. State v. Borders , 293 Or. App. 791, 793, 429 P.3d 1067 (2018).
The state concedes that the trial court erred by imposing the conditions for the first time in the written judgment without announcing them at sentencing. See State v. Keen , 304 Or. App. 89, 90, 466 P.3d 95 (2020) (accepting state's concession that trial court plainly erred by imposing challenged special condition of probation outside the defendant's presence); State v. Dennis , 303 Or. App. 595, 597, 464 P.3d 518 (2020) (same). That concession is well taken.
However, in advance of this case being submitted, we asked the parties whether the issues concerning the probation conditions were moot. Based on the parties’ responses, we conclude it is. Defendant is appealing from a judgment issued on November 26, 2019. The two-year probationary sentence imposed by that judgment has now expired, and this court can offer no meaningful remedy. As a result, defendant's claims of error challenging the conditions of probation are moot. See State v. Miller , 262 Or. App. 537, 541 n. 1, 325 P.3d 787 (2014) ("absent the existence of collateral consequences, an appeal of special probation conditions is moot once the probation expires"). Accordingly, we do not reach assignments of error 1 through 6 as they are moot, and we affirm as to assignments of error 7 and 8.
Affirmed.