State v. Willis , 318 Or. App. 219 ( 2022 )

219
Submitted February 11, affirmed March 9, 2022
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
STEVEN DEWAYNE WILLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Washington County Circuit Court
19CR65932; A173063
506 P3d 499
Andrew Erwin, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Andrew D. Robinson, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services filed the briefs for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before James, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
220 State v. Willis
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of
one count each of felon in possession of a restricted weapon,
fourth-degree assault, harassment, and interference with
making a report. Defendant’s seventh and eighth assign-
ments of error are foreclosed by State v. Austin, 316 Or App
56, 501 P3d 1136 (2021), and State v. Gomez, 310 Or App
693, 485 P3d 314 (2021). In defendant’s first through sixth
assignments of error, defendant challenges special condi-
tions of probation that were imposed outside of defendant’s
presence. We review for errors of law. State v. Borders, 293
Or App 791, 793, 429 P3d 1067 (2018).
The state concedes that the trial court erred by
imposing the conditions for the first time in the written
judgment without announcing them at sentencing. See State
v. Keen, 304 Or App 89, 90, 466 P3d 95 (2020) (accepting
state’s concession that trial court plainly erred by imposing
challenged special condition of probation outside the defen-
dant’s presence); State v. Dennis, 303 Or App 595, 597, 464
P3d 518 (2020) (same). That concession is well taken.
However, in advance of this case being submit-
ted, we asked the parties whether the issues concerning
the probation conditions were moot. Based on the parties’
responses, we conclude it is. Defendant is appealing from
a judgment issued on November 26, 2019. The two-year
probationary sentence imposed by that judgment has now
expired, and this court can offer no meaningful remedy. As
a result, defendant’s claims of error challenging the condi-
tions of probation are moot. See State v. Miller, 262 Or App
537, 541 n 1, 325 P3d 787 (2014) (“absent the existence of
collateral consequences, an appeal of special probation con-
ditions is moot once the probation expires”). Accordingly, we
do not reach assignments of error 1 through 6 as they are
moot, and we affirm as to assignments of error 7 and 8.
Affirmed.