State of Idaho v. Travis Joseph Clayton

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51945

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 16, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TRAVIS JOSEPH CLAYTON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Matthew J. Roker, District Judge.

Appeal from judgment revoking probation, dismissed as moot.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Stacey M. Donohue, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Travis Joseph Clayton pled guilty to felony driving under the influence, Idaho Code § 18-
8004. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court
imposed a unified term of four years with two years determinate, but after a period of retained
jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Clayton on probation. Subsequently, Clayton
admitted to violating the terms of the probation, the district court consequently revoked probation,
imposed his underlying sentence, and placed Clayton on retained jurisdiction. Following the
second period of retained jurisdiction, the district court placed Clayton back on probation. Clayton
appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by retaining jurisdiction and failing
to reinstate his probation. The State filed a motion to augment with an order that reflects the

1
district court placed Clayton on probation after his rider. Clayton filed a reply acknowledging that
the district court placed him on probation after he filed his appellant’s brief in this case.
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
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 only relief Clayton has requested on appeal cannot be granted because Clayton has
been placed back on probation. Therefore, any judicial relief from this Court would have no effect
on either party.
Accordingly, Clayton’s appeal from the judgment revoking probation is dismissed.

2