State of Idaho v. Wendy Jean Rosco

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50071

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 26, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
WENDY JEAN ROSCO, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner
County. Hon. Barbara A Buchanan, District Judge.

Appeal from order withholding judgment and sentence of ten days in jail for grand
theft, dismissed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Wendy Dean Rosco was found guilty of grand theft. I.C. § 18-2403(1). The district court
withheld judgment and sentenced Rosco to a term of ten days in jail, with credit for time served of
two days, and placed her on unsupervised probation for one year. Rosco appealed. Subsequently,
while this appeal was pending, Rosco completed her jail sentence. On appeal, Rosco continues to
assert that the district court erred in ordering incarceration.
A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the defendant lacks
a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982); Bradshaw

1
v. State, 120 Idaho 429, 432, 816 P.2d 986, 989 (1991). Even where a question is moot, there are
three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal
consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely
to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue
raises concerns of substantial public interest. State v. Barclay, 149 Idaho 6, 8, 232 P.3d 327, 329
(2010). The relief Rosco has requested on appeal cannot be granted because she has served her
sentence. Therefore, any judicial relief from this Court would have no effect on either party. See
id.
Accordingly, Rosco’s appeal from the order withholding judgment and her sentence is
dismissed.

2