On Point: 4. Mootness

State v. Matthew O. Roach, 2011AP2105-CR, District 4, 5/17/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roach: Brandon Kuhl; case activity

Mootness Doctrine – Generally 

¶8 n. 2:

The State also contends that this issue is moot because the condition of probation Roach challenges expired on January 19, 2012.  An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy.  

State v. Joseph J. Wilcenski, 2013 WI App 21; case activity

Conditions of pre-trial release – alcohol treatment and testing; constitutionality

Waukesha County has adopted a policy that all persons arrested for OWI as a second or subsequent offense who live in one of ten counties be released from custody on the condition that they participate in a “pretrial intoxicated driver treatment program.” Wilcenski argues that this condition violates the constitutional rights to medical privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches.

Managed Health Services Insurance Corp. v. Wisconsin DHS, 2010AP2551, District 1, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (recommended for publication ); case activity

Managed Health’s appeal related to contract procurement is dismissed as moot; because of failure to seek a stay of the trial court’s order allowing the process to continue, the contracts have already been let, and therefore even if Managed Health were to prevail, no remedy could be awarded.

Kenosha County DHS v. Amber D., 2011AP667, District 2, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amber D.: Philip J, Brehm; case activity

Mother’s termination appeal, explicitly linking itself to outcome of father’s then-pending appeal, rendered moot by latter’s unsuccessful outcome:

¶1        Amber D. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights.  At the time that she wrote her brief, the father’s appeal was pending.

Harlan Richards v. Graham, 2011 WI App 100(recommended for publication); for Richards: Kendall W. Harrison, Jennifer L. Gregor; case activity

Mootness Doctrine

Challenge to Parole Commission decision to increase deferment period from 10 to 12 months, and to Program Review Committee decision to increase security status, not rendered moot by subsequent parole and program hearings.

¶11      An issue is moot when a party seeks a determination that will have no practical effect on an existing legal controversy. 

Michael D. Turner v. Rogers, USSC No. 10-10, 6/20/11

Appellate Procedure – Mootness Doctrine

Turner’s appeal – he challenges denial of appointed counsel in a civil contempt proceeding but has fully served the resultant 12-month sentence –  isn’t moot:

The short, conclusive answer to respondents’ mootness claim, however, is that this case is not moot because it falls within a special category of disputes that are “capable of repetition” while “evading review.” Southern Pacific Terminal Co.

State v. Thomas J. Hoffman, 2010AP1327-CR, District 2, 3/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hoffman: Kathleen A. Lindgren; case activity

Hoffman’s challenge to the length of his sentence became moot once he had fully served it.

¶6     At the outset, the State contends that Hoffman’s appeal is moot; he has served his entire seven-month sentence and this court’s review on his motion for sentence modification will have no practical effect. 

Questions Presented:

May a party appeal an order denying summary judgment after a full trial on the merits if the party chose not to appeal the order before trial?

SCOTUS docket: here. Scotusblog, briefs: here.

This have anything to do with SPD-related practice? Not really, strictly speaking. But, isn’t the problem at least somewhat reminiscent of the recurrent one based in State v.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Keri H.: Leonard D. Kachinski

IAC Claim – TPR
“The decision not to emphasize events preceding the current termination petitions was a reasonable strategic choice and does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel,” ¶11. Separately: counsel did not perform deficiently in his efforts to obtain Keri H.’s client file from predecessor counsel, and then securing an adjournment to prepare for trial,

State v. Clayborn L. Walker, 2008 WI 34, reversing 2007 WI App 142
For Walker: Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue/Holding:

¶14      As a preliminary matter, while the issue before the court is moot because Walker has completed his reconfinement term and thus our decision will not affect the underlying controversy, we may at times consider a moot issue if it is of “great public importance or arises frequently enough to warrant a definitive decision to guide the circuit courts.”