AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted on three misdemeanor counts: no insurance, failure to display registration plate, and speeding. The district court sentenced the Defendant to 90 days and a $300 fine for the first two counts, with sentences to be suspended and run concurrently. The sentence for the no insurance count was later amended to a fine only. The Defendant completed his term of probation successfully.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his sentence was illegal as to the probation served for the no insurance and failure to display registration plate counts. Contended that the completion of probation should nullify the $300 fine imposed for these counts due to the illegality of the sentences (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant's appeal is moot as he faces no further liability or consequence under the trial court’s final order. Asserted that the Defendant cannot show he suffers from collateral consequences as a result of the alleged error in sentencing (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's sentences for no insurance and failure to display registration plate were illegal.
• Whether the Defendant's appeal is moot given the completion of his probation term.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s sentence as to Counts 1 and 2, failure to display registration and no insurance (para 13).

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and Linda M. Vanzi, Judge, concurring):
  The Court found that issues not argued on appeal are considered abandoned. The Defendant abandoned his challenge to the sufficiency of evidence for the no insurance count by not including it in his brief-in-chief (paras 4-5).
  The Court held that the Defendant's appeal is moot as he has completed his sentence and faces no further consequences that could be remedied by an appellate ruling. The appeal does not present issues of substantial public interest or constitutional questions, and the statutory concerns raised by the Defendant have been addressed by legislative changes, rendering the issues not capable of repetition (paras 6-12).