People v. Garcia, 2014 COA 85

In 2010 Esteban Zamora Garcia pleaded guilty to criminal impersonation (providing a false name/ID during a DUI stop); he received probation and a one-year jail sentence, conditioned on departing the U.S. and not reentering without inspection and visa.
The court ultimately released Garcia to ICE custody for deportation; Garcia subsequently reentered the U.S. multiple times and was removed several times by ICE.
After a later arrest for a traffic violation, the trial court found Garcia had reentered without a valid visa and revoked his probation, sentencing him to one year (with credit for time served).
Garcia completed the sentence and was deported again; he appealed the probation revocation, arguing only a federal immigration judge may determine an immigrant's legal status (i.e., whether his conviction constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT)).
The People moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, asserting Garcia had served his sentence, was deported, and is permanently barred from reentry because his criminal impersonation conviction is a CIMT.
The court agreed with the People and dismissed the appeal as moot, finding no applicable exception to mootness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal of probation revocation is moot	The People: appeal is moot because Garcia served sentence, was deported, and is barred from reentry	Garcia: revocation has collateral consequences (naturalization, future admission) so appeal is not moot	Moot: Garcia served sentence, does not challenge conviction, and is permanently barred from reentry; dismissal granted
Whether only a federal immigration judge can determine that a conviction is a CIMT	The People: state court may determine whether a conviction is a CIMT for collateral-law purposes	Garcia: only federal immigration judge can decide CIMT and reentry bars	State court can characterize whether a conviction is a CIMT; here criminal impersonation is a CIMT (court follows Tenth Circuit reasoning), but merits not reached because appeal is moot

Bd. of Dirs., Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 105 P.3d 653 (Colo. 2005) (mootness is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Moland v. People, 757 P.2d 137 (Colo. 1988) (conviction appeals require consideration of direct and collateral consequences for mootness)
United States v. Meyers, 200 F.3d 715 (10th Cir. 2000) (appeal of revocation rendered moot after completion of resulting imprisonment)
United States v. Probber, 170 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. 1999) (possible future sentencing impact too speculative to avoid mootness after imprisonment complete)
Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982) (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review standard requires reasonable expectation the controversy will recur)
People v. Garcia, 89 P.3d 519 (Colo. App. 2004) (state court may determine whether a conviction constitutes a CIMT for collateral immigration consequences)
People v. Devorss, 277 P.3d 829 (Colo. App. 2011) (discussing exceptions to mootness in Colorado appellate review)