State v. McClellan, 339 P.3d 942

McClellan was convicted of retail theft and violating a protective order and sentenced on April 29, 2013 to two concurrent 365-day jail terms (credit for time served).
The district court ordered the cases closed upon completion of the sentences.
McClellan appealed only the sentence (not the convictions).
By the time of appeal, McClellan had completed his jail sentences.
McClellan argued the sentences harmed his ability to improve his living situation and family relationships.
The appellate court considered whether the appeal was moot and whether any exceptions to mootness applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal challenging sentences is moot	State: Appeal is moot because sentences are completed and cases closed	McClellan: Requests resentencing despite having completed sentence	Held: Moot — resentencing would be impossible or of no legal effect
Whether collateral consequences keep the appeal live	State: No legally imposed collateral consequences remain	McClellan: Continued harms to housing, support network, and parenting preserve review	Held: These are not legal collateral consequences imposed by law, so they do not defeat mootness
Whether the ‘capable of repetition yet evading review’ exception applies	—	McClellan: Implicitly argues review necessary despite mootness	Held: Exception does not apply; the issue is case‑specific and not of wide concern

In re C.D., 245 P.3d 724 (Utah 2010) (courts avoid deciding moot cases)
Richards v. Baum, 914 P.2d 719 (Utah 1996) (definition of mootness where relief requested is impossible or of no legal effect)
State v. Peterson, 293 P.3d 1103 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (appeal challenging completed sentence is generally moot)
State v. Martinez, 925 P.2d 176 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (same principle on mootness after sentence completion)
In re Adoption of L.O., 282 P.3d 977 (Utah 2012) (quotation on impossibility of relief)
Towner v. Ridgway, 272 P.3d 765 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (reputational and family harms not ‘imposed by law’ collateral consequences)
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (stigma alone insufficient to avoid mootness)
In re Giles, 657 P.2d 285 (Utah 1982) (exception for matters capable of repetition yet evading review)
Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 219 U.S. 498 (1911) (origin of capable-of-repetition exception)
Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896 (Utah 1981) (standard for applying repetition/evading-review exception)
State v. Moore, 210 P.3d 967 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (reference to Wickham standard in mootness context)