State v. Bates, 500 P.3d 746

Background

Defendant Bates pleaded guilty to private indecency and received a stipulated probationary sentence.
At sentencing the court orally ordered no contact with the victim and that Bates not reside at the apartment complex; the written judgment added broader terms (e.g., a 100‑yard exclusion and other prohibitions) not announced in open court.
Bates appealed, arguing the written judgment imposed a probation condition the court had not announced at sentencing.
The State responded that the appeal was moot because a later probation‑violation judgment found Bates in violation and "continued probation," and Bates did not appeal that later judgment.
The Court of Appeals concluded the State failed to prove mootness, overruled State v. Nguyen, held the additional written condition was unlawfully imposed, and remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bates)	Held
1. Is the appeal moot because a later probation‑violation judgment continued probation?	The later judgment continued identical conditions, so reversal of the original judgment would have no practical effect.	The later judgment was not appealable, did not itself reimpose the challenged condition, and the State must prove mootness.	Not moot. The State failed to show the later proceeding rendered the appeal ineffective; Nguyen was overruled.
2. Does a written probation condition that was not announced in open court constitute reversible error?	(State did not dispute merits here.)	The unannounced condition is unlawful and entitles Bates to resentencing.	Yes. Imposing conditions in the written judgment that were not announced at sentencing is reversible error; remand for resentencing.
3. Could an oral pronouncement at a later probation hearing cure the original error or require Bates to appeal the later judgment?	Any oral pronouncement at the PV hearing could cure the error; Bates could have appealed the PV judgment.	The State bears the burden to show mootness; a subsequent PV judgment is not presumptively dispositive, and many PV judgments are not appealable.	The State must affirmatively show what occurred at the later proceeding; mere existence of a PV judgment continuing probation does not establish mootness.
4. Should State v. Nguyen control or be overruled?	Nguyen supported dismissal as moot.	Nguyen’s reasoning was incomplete and inconsistent with later cases.	Nguyen is overruled as plainly wrong in its treatment of mootness in these circumstances.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Nguyen, 298 Or App 139 (2019) (two‑paragraph per curiam on mootness in similar context; overruled)
State v. Dennis, 303 Or App 595 (2020) (probation‑violation judgment that "continued" probation does not supplant original sentencing judgment)
State v. Hunt, 307 Or App 71 (2020) (analysis of appealability under ORS 138.035(3); sanctions in PV orders are generally not "conditions of probation")
State v. Anotta, 302 Or App 176 (2020) (remedy for unannounced probation conditions is remand for resentencing)
Dept. of Human Services v. A. B., 362 Or 412 (2018) (mootness requires that deciding the issue will have no practical effect; burden is on party asserting mootness)
State v. Lomack, 307 Or App 596 (2020) (example where appeal became moot because probation was revoked and condition no longer applied)
State v. Maack, 270 Or App 400 (2015) (appellate courts generally will not resolve validity of a probation condition in a revocation appeal)