State Of Washington, Respondent vs. Sallyea Oneal Mcclinton, Appellant

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

FILED
PEALS DIV I
corre OF WASHINGTON

2IGHAR-S AH 9: 01

ne <n a

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 76001-7-I
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE
V.

SALLYEA O. MCCLINTON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellant. FILED: March 5, 2018

eee mee el” age ae See “oe” one “nae “ml

BECKER, J. — Sallyea McClinton challenges an order imposing
confinement as a sanction for violating conditions of his probation. He argues
that the trial court relied on inadmissible hearsay in finding one of the violations
proven. The issue is moot because McClinton has already served the term of
confinement. The appeal is dismissed.

McClinton was convicted of rape and burglary in 1997. He was released
from prison in 2013 and began a term of community custody. This appeal arises
from a sentence review hearing held on October 27, 2016, to address allegations
that McClinton violated conditions of his community custody. The alleged
violations included that McClinton failed to keep his Global Positioning System
(GPS) unit charged. The State’s only witness, a corrections officer, testified that

a different officer informed him that the battery died on McClinton’s GPS unit on

No. 76001-7-1/2
July 27, 2016. McClinton did not object to this testimony. The judge determined
that three violations had been proven, including "failure to abide by GPS
monitoring." The judge imposed 60 days of confinement for each violation.
McClinton appeals the sentence modification order. He contends that the
trial court relied on inadmissible hearsay in deciding that the GPS unit lost charge
and that this was a manifest constitutional error.
The issue is moot. Because McClinton has already served the term of
confinement imposed for this violation, we cannot provide effective relief. State
v. McClinton, 186 Wn. App. 826, 829, 347 P.3d 889, review denied, 184 Wn.2d
1004(2015); State v. Abd-Rahmaan, 154 Wn.2d 280, 291, 111 P.3d 1157
(2005).
McClinton argues that we should nonetheless review the merits of his
claim because the issue is likely to recur, yet evade review,"as the appeals
process typically takes longer than the time imposed for probation violations."
Appellate courts have discretion to decide a moot issue to provide an
authoritative determination on an issue that is likely to recur. Sorenson v. City of
Bellingham, 80 Wn.2d 547, 558, 496 P.2d 512(1972). Such a determination is
not needed here. The law is clear that hearsay is not admissible in a sentence
modification hearing absent good cause. Abd-Rahmaan, 154 Wn.2d at 290.
2

No. 76001-7-I/3

Dismissed.

WE CONCUR:

LaA J
Y