State of Utah v. Payne

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Jason Edward Payne,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20000497-CA

F I L E D
August 16, 2001 2001 UT App 242 -----

Third District, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable J. Dennis Frederick

Attorneys:
Joan C. Watt and Andrea J. Garland, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff and Jeanne B. Inouye, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Orme, and Thorne.

ORME, Judge:

This appeal raises the same issues as those raised in State v. Wanosik, 2001 UT App 241, regarding in absentia sentencing and a criminal defendant's Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 22(a) and Due Process rights at sentencing. As with the defendant in Wanosik, Payne requests that we vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing. During the pendency of this appeal, however, Payne was resentenced, and at resentencing the trial court imposed a more lenient sentence than it imposed initially.

Subsequent to Payne's resentencing, we received a Suggestion of Mootness from the State. The State asserts that at resentencing Payne was afforded those rights he claims to have been denied at his initial sentencing--an assertion Payne does not contest--and requests that we dismiss Payne's appeal as moot. We have delayed ruling on the State's Suggestion of Mootness in order to ensure that our opinion in Wanosik would resolve all of the issues common to the two appeals.(1)

Wanosik did, however, resolve each of the issues raised in this appeal, and Payne having already received the resentencing he requests, the State's Suggestion of Mootness is well-taken. We dismiss this appeal as moot.
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne, Jr., Judge

1. Had we been unable in Wanosik to resolve all of the issues raised in both Payne's and Wanosik's appeals, we would have decided whether to address any remaining issues through a published opinion in this case under the public policy exception to the mootness doctrine. See generally In re S.L., 1999 UT App 390,¶40, 995 P.2d 17; Kehl v. Schwendiman, 735 P.2d 413, 415 (Utah Ct. App. 1987).