State v. Mathews

2014 UT App 169
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF UTAH,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
RYAN D. MATHEWS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20130544-CA
Filed July 25, 2014
Third District Court, West Jordan Department
The Honorable Terry L. Christiansen
No. 111400856
Debra M. Nelson and Daniel M. Torrence,
Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and Tera J. Peterson, Attorneys
for Appellee
BEFORE JUDGES JAMES Z. DAVIS, STEPHEN L. ROTH, AND
MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Ryan D. Mathews appeals an order of the district court
revoking his probation, reinstating the probation term, and
imposing a 210-day jail term. We dismiss the appeal because
subsequent events have rendered the issues moot.
¶2 Following an evidentiary hearing in May 2013 on an alleged
second violation of probation, the district court revoked and
reinstated probation for a period of twenty-four months. The
district court ordered Mathews to serve a 210-day jail term and
complete the CATS drug treatment program while in jail. The court

State v. Mathews
20130544-CA 2 2014 UT App 169
stated that Mathews could apply for early release upon his
completion of the CATS program. While this appeal was pending,
Mathews completed the CATS program and was granted an early
release from jail with the requirement that probation would
continue for six months beginning on September 16, 2013.
¶3 The State requests that this court take judicial notice of the
proceedings on a third probation violation report filed in February
2014, while this appeal was pending. See In re F.M., 2002 UT App
340, ¶ 3 n.2, 57 P.3d 1103 (stating that the court may take judicial
notice of the record in the same case). We take judicial notice of the
adjudicative facts contained in the March 17, 2014 judgment in the
underlying case that revoked probation, terminated it as
unsuccessful, and required Mathews to serve sixty days in jail with
credit for time served.
¶4 As a result of the March 17, 2014 judgment, the issues in this
appeal from the May 2013 revocation and reinstatement are now
moot. An issue becomes moot while an appeal is pending if
“circumstances change so that the controversy is eliminated,
thereby rendering the relief requested impossible or of no legal
effect.” State v. Peterson, 2012 UT App 363, ¶ 4, 293 P.3d 1103
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because Mathews’s
probation was terminated and he has since served his jail term, any
claimed error in the May 2013 revocation and reinstatement of
probation is rendered moot. Furthermore, although Mathews
asserts on appeal that he was prejudiced by the May 2013 decision
because “the original expiration of his probationary term of May
2014 was extended to May 2015,” the district court released
Mathews from jail in September 2013 and amended his
probationary term to expire in March 2014, which was two months
earlier than his original probation period ordered in the November
2011 sentence. Finally, the subsequent revocation and termination
of probation rendered any remaining issues moot.
¶5 Based upon the foregoing, we dismiss this appeal under the
mootness doctrine because the relief requested—reversal of the

State v. Mathews
20130544-CA 3 2014 UT App 169
May 2013 judgment revoking and reinstating probation—would be
of no legal effect.