where a defendant, convicted of a criminal offences, has voluntarily paid tire fine or completed the sentence for that offense, an appeal is moot when no evidence is offered from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights from such judgment or conviction
How later courts described this case
- where a defendant, convicted of a criminal offences, has voluntarily paid tire fine or completed the sentence for that offense, an appeal is moot when no evidence is offered from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights from such judgment or conviction
- where a defendant, convicted of a criminal offences, has voluntarily paid the fine or completed the sentence for that offense, an appeal is moot when no evidence is offered from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights from such judgment or conviction
- “evidence must be offered from which an inference can be drawn that [defendant] suffers some collateral disability apart from the sentence”
- the fact that misdemeanant did not complete sentence voluntarily demonstrates that he “‘[had] a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Herbert, J.,
concurring in the judgment. It seems to me that judicial notice can be taken of the “collateral disability” which accompanies the acquisition by an adult of a criminal record, and that such harm is of sufficient magnitude to overcome a charge of mootness.
The facts here narrowly support an affirmance of the *239 judgment upon the basis of a waiver of the right to appeal, made by this defendant through his retained counsel, and I would prefer that our holding in this case turn upon that hypostasis.