STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KESON JENKINS (15-12-2817, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                         NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
    Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
    parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-4814-15T1
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    KESON JENKINS,
    Defendant-Respondent,
    and
    IMAN PARKER and FIRST INDEMNITY
    OF AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Defendants,
    and
    ALL USA BAIL BONDS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________________________________
    Argued October 16, 2017 – Decided October 31, 2017
    Before Judges Messano and Vernoia.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New
    Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment
    No. 15-12-2817.
    Samuel M.       Silver     argued    the    cause    for
    appellant.
    Eric B. Kaviar argued the cause for respondent
    Keson Jenkins.
    PER CURIAM
    Appellant All USA Bail Bonds appeals from a June 1, 2016
    order denying its motion for exoneration as surety and discharge
    of a $50,000 bond it posted for defendant Keson Jenkins's release
    on bail on three drug offenses. We are advised the charges against
    Jenkins have been resolved and that, as a result, the bond has
    been discharged or will be discharged upon appellant's request.
    We dismiss the appeal as moot.        See Finkel v. Twp. Comm., 
    434 N.J. Super. 303
    , 315 (App. Div. 2013) ("[O]ur courts often decline
    to review legal questions that have become academic prior to
    judicial scrutiny, out of reluctance to render a decision in the
    abstract on such moot issues and a related desire to conserve
    judicial resources.").     We are also satisfied the issues presented
    are   not   "of   significant   public     importance,"     ibid.,   and   are
    otherwise    fact-sensitive     and       therefore   not     "'capable      of
    repetition, yet evading review' because of the short duration of
    any single plaintiff's interest," 
    ibid.
     (quoting In re Conroy, 
    190 N.J. Super. 453
    , 459 (App. Div. 1983), rev'd on other grounds, 
    98 N.J. 321
     (1985)).
    Dismissed as moot.
    2                               A-4814-15T1
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-4814-15T1

Filed Date: 10/31/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/2/2017