State v. Judd
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. NO. 34,847 5 KEITH RUSSELL JUDD, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Stan Whitaker, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Keith Russell Judd 13 Midland, TX 14 Pro Se Appellant 15 16 KENNEDY, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Appellant, who is self-represented, appeals from a district court order denying 2 his motion to vacate a 1999 order. We issued a calendar notice proposing to dismiss. 3 Appellant has responded with a memorandum in opposition. We dismiss. 4 {2} Appellant’s appeal is from a July 2015 district court order [RP 1815] that 5 denied a motion to vacate a 1999 district court order that dismissed criminal charges 6 against him and released him from probation. [RP 1570, 74-75; 1815-16] In June 7 1998, the district court entered a judgment and sentence after finding Appellant guilty 8 of two misdemeanors. [RP 1528] Appellant appealed that judgment [RP 1544], and 9 this Court affirmed the convictions. [RP 1580] Appellant served his sentence by the 10 time mandate was issued by this Court, as indicated by the 1999 order now being 11 challenged. [RP 1570]. Appellant is arguing that the district court should not have 12 issued the 1999 dismissal order while his appeal from the underlying judgment was 13 pending. We are aware of no authority for the proposition that a court may not address 14 a situation where a defendant has served his full sentence prior to the disposition of 15 his appeal. In any event, we conclude that the current appeal is moot, because there 16 is no remedy that this Court could grant that would afford actual relief. See State v. 17 Sergio B., 2002-NMCA-070, ¶ 9, 132 N.M. 375, 48 P.3d 764 (“An appeal is moot 18 when no actual controversy exists, and an appellate ruling will not grant the appellant 19 any actual relief.”). There also are no collateral consequences that would otherwise 2 1 allow us to address the appeal. See id. ¶ 10. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See 2 id. 3 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 _______________________________ RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 6 WE CONCUR: 7 ___________________________________ 8 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 9 _________________________________ 10 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
