State v. Pointer

No. 416                May 7, 2025                     413

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                  STATE OF OREGON

                STATE OF OREGON,
                 Plaintiff-Respondent,
                           v.
       GABRYL DEVONN MICHAEL POINTER,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
             Marion County Circuit Court
   23CN01616, 20CR54612; A181842 (Control), A181843

  Matthew L. Tracey, Judge.
  Submitted April 3, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Nora Coon, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon
Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
   Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Appeal dismissed as moot.
414                                           State v. Pointer

        PER CURIAM
         In this consolidated criminal appeal, defendant
challenges the trial court’s judgment in Case No. 20CR54612,
which extended defendant’s probation and provided that
“revocation shall result in consecutive sentences.” On appeal,
defendant raises one assignment of error, in which he contends that the trial court erred “when it found that defendant violated the general condition of probation to ‘obey all
laws, municipal, county, state, and federal’ when he violated
a restraining order.”
         During the pendency of this appeal, defendant’s
probation in Case No. 20CR54612 was revoked and this
court affirmed the judgment revoking his probation without
issuing an opinion. State v. Pointer, 

, 562
P3d 1153 (2025). Consequently, a decision by this court on
the merits of this appeal would have no practical effect on
defendant’s rights and this appeal is moot. State v. K. J. B.,

, 416 P3d 291 (2018) (explaining that “a case
becomes moot when a court’s decision will no longer have a
practical effect on the rights of the parties” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Garges v. Premo, 

, 421
P3d 345 (2018) (“Mootness results when a change in circumstance or some intervening event has eliminated the possibility that the requested relief can be provided.”).
         Further, although defendant contends that this
case would not be moot if this court reversed the judgment
revoking his probation, he has not identified any practical
consequence that he believes a decision in this case would
have if we affirmed the judgment revoking his probation,
which, as noted, we have done. State v. Lomack, 

, 477 P3d 1222 (2020) (“When the issue of mootness
arises on appeal, generally, the appellant must identify any
practical consequences that he or she believes that our decision would have, and then the respondent may seek to establish that the identified collateral consequences either do not
exist or are legally insufficient.” (Internal quotation marks
omitted.)). Consequently, we dismiss defendant’s appeal as
moot.
        Appeal dismissed as moot.