STATE v. MORTER (2022)

In these consolidated cases concerning convictions for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), defendant appeals from judgments revoking his probation and sentencing him to 30 days in jail in one case and 45 days in jail in the other case, arguing that the trial court plainly erred in accepting his admissions to numerous probation violations. The state asserts that the case is moot, given that the jail sentences have long since been served. In response, defendant argues that the stigma associated with probation revocations is essentially the same as the stigma associated with a conviction or a contempt sanction. We disagree that this leads to a conclusion that the case is not moot; the stigma of DUII convictions is essentially the same whether or not a defendant serves 30 or 45 days in jail on those convictions. This court has consistently held that cases in this posture are moot. See, e.g., State v. Smith, 223 Or. App. 250, 195 P.3d 467 (2008) (dismissing appeal from probation-violation judgment that was mooted by completion of sentence); State v. Dick, 169 Or. App. 649, 10 P.3d 315 (2000) (same); cf., Dunn v. Board of Parole, 310 Or. App. 249, 487 P.3d 410, rev. den., 368 Or. 702, 497 P.3d 1235 (2021) (challenge to post-prison supervision jail sanction mooted by completion of sanction).

Appeals dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM