State v. Hilton, 286 P.3d 871

Hilton faced two consecutive 12-month probation terms tied to two criminal cases: 2005 felony damage to property with 10-month prison term and 12-month probation plus restitution; 2007 attempted reckless aggravated battery with 8-month prison term and 12-month probation.
The 2005 probation was extended due to restitution issues and later overlapped with the 2007 case probation, with conflicting journal entries about which sentence and probation term began first.
In 2009, the district court revoked the 2005 probation but reinstated 12 months of probation for that case, and ordered the 2007 probation to run consecutively, creating a total 24 months of probation and 18 months of prison terms.
Hilton admitted violations of probation in February 2009 (drinking and DUI). At a March 2009 revocation hearing, defense argued the 2007 probation could not be violated before it began due to its consecutive structure; the district court rejected this.
Hilton appealed the revocations, but the Court of Appeals dismissed as moot after Hilton had completed serving her sentences; this Court granted review to address mootness and the potential appellate reinstatement.
The Court ultimately held the appeal was moot but fit the public-importance, repetition exception to mootness and remanded for reinstatement of the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of probation-revocation appeal	Hilton: appeal should not be moot; White supports non-mootness.	State: mootness applies post-sentencing; Montgomery criticizes White's approach.	Moot; but exception applied to allow reinstatement.
Consecutive probation structure and revocation before probation began	Hilton: cannot revoke probation in the second case for violations before it began.	State: court has jurisdiction; violations during concurrent probation can be revoked.	Question resolves in favor of allowing appeal consideration on remand.
Public-importance repetition exception applicability	Hilton argues issue could recur in two-case scenarios and affect public.	State argues exception not warranted.	Exception applies; remand to reinstate appeal.
Remedy and procedural posture on remand	Hilton seeks appellate review of probation-structure issue.	State seeks completion of mootness pipeline.	Remand to Court of Appeals for reinstatement and consideration.

State v. White, 41 Kan. App. 2d 943 (2009) (probation revocation appeal may remain non-moot for potential future impact)
State v. Montgomery, 43 Kan. App. 2d 397 (2010) (mootness; probation violation effects can be exhausted; appeal can be moot otherwise)
State v. DuMars, 37 Kan. App. 2d 600 (2007) (mootness exception for repetition and public importance)
State v. Bennett, 288 Kan. 86, 200 P.3d 455 (2009) (mootness doctrine anchored by court precedent)