State v. Willis

                                 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
                             

   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 assignments of error are foreclosed by State v. Austin, 

, 

 (2021), and State v. Gomez, 

, 

 (2021). In defendant’s first through sixth
assignments of error, defendant challenges special conditions of probation that were imposed outside of defendant’s
presence. We review for errors of law. State v. Borders, 

, 

 (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, 

, 

 (2020) (accepting
state’s concession that trial court plainly erred by imposing
challenged special condition of probation outside the defendant’s presence); State v. Dennis, 

, 

 (2020) (same). That concession is well taken.
         However, in advance of this case being submitted, 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 conditions of probation are moot. See State v. Miller, 

, 541 n 1, 

 (2014) (“absent the existence of
collateral consequences, an appeal of special probation conditions 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.