State v. Montgomery
286 P.3d 866
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Montgomery pled nolo contendere to a second drug offense requiring mandatory treatment and probation.
- Probation conditions included reporting as directed, abstaining from illegal drugs, drug/alcohol treatment, and obtaining legal employment.
- State moved to revoke probation; Montgomery admitted violating probation at a revocation hearing.
- District court sentenced Montgomery to 11 months in prison and placed him on 18 months of probation; he served the prison term.
- Court of Appeals dismissed as moot; Montgomery argued mootness exception due to potential future consequences of revocation.
- This Court granted review to resolve whether the mootness doctrine forecloses appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot after completion of the sentence? | Montgomery | Montgomery | Yes; the appeal is moot as no further sanction remains. |
| Can future collateral consequences defeat mootness? | Montgomery | State | No; potential future consequences do not defeat mootness here. |
| May precedent on mootness and amenability to probation apply here? | Montgomery | State | Court adopts mootness framework and affirms dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Snow, 40 Kan. App. 2d 747 (Kan. App. 2008) (nonamenability to probation may justify upward departures)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (distinguishes concrete vs. hypothetical collateral consequences for mootness)
- White, 41 Kan. App. 2d 943 (Kan. App. 2009) (probation revocation could affect future amenability to probation)
- Flanagan, 19 Kan. App. 2d 528 (Kan. App. 1994) (conviction challenges differ from probation-revocation consequences)
- State v. DuMars, 37 Kan. App. 2d 600 (Kan. App. 2007) (public-interest mootness exception for issues capable of repetition)
- State v. McKnight, 292 Kan. 776 (Kan. 2011) (mootness generally governs appellate review)
- State v. Bennett, 288 Kan. 86 (Kan. 2009) (mootness doctrine and finality of judgments)
- In re M.R., 272 Kan. 1335 (Kan. 2002) (test for when an appeal is not moot: real controversy, operative judgment)
- McAlister v. City of Fairway, 289 Kan. 391 (Kan. 2009) (mootness test: clearly and convincingly ended controversy)
- State v. Brown, No. 95, 985 (Kan. App. 2008) (Spencer framework applied in mootness context (unpublished) )