Adams v. Killeen
| Decision Date | 05 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 17508,17508 |
| Citation | 115 Idaho 1034,772 P.2d 241 |
| Parties | James A. ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vaughn KILLEEN, Sheriff; Larry Richards, Legal Advisor, Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
James A. Adams, pro se.
Jim Jones, Atty. Gen. by Myrna A.I. Stahman, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Larry Richards, Boise, for respondents.
This appeal arises from the dismissal of an inmate's petition for writ of habeas corpus. James Adams was convicted of forgery in October 1987 and received a sentence of seven years. The sentence was suspended and Adams was placed on probation. As a condition of the probation Adams was required to serve one year in the Ada County jail, during which time he could not violate any jail rules. In January 1988 Adams was involved in a dispute with a jailer which resulted in a jail disciplinary hearing. Adams was accused of committing rule violations. A hearing officer found Adams had violated the rules. As a result Adams was denied visitation and commissary privileges for three weeks and was placed on twenty-three hour lock down for the duration of his incarceration.
Adams subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the hearing had been conducted in violation of the county jail hearing guidelines. Specifically, Adams alleged that the jail disciplinary hearing had not taken place within a required seventy-two hour period from the time the hearing was requested. A magistrate denied the petition. He concluded that the failure to hold the jail disciplinary hearing within the time requirements contained in the county's jail manual did not invalidate the entire hearing process. Adams appealed the magistrate's order to the district court. The case was assigned to District Judge Schwartzman.
During this time separate probation violation proceedings were instituted against Adams in the criminal case. A hearing was conducted by District Judge G.D. Carey. The judge made a finding that Adams had violated jail rules and consequently had also violated the conditions of his probation. Judge Carey revoked the probation and ordered the balance of Adams' suspended seven-year sentence for forgery to be executed. Adams was removed from the Ada County jail and transferred to the Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI). Following this transfer Judge Schwartzman dismissed Adams' habeas corpus appeal as moot. Adams now appeals this order, arguing that the district court erred in ruling that his transfer to the penitentiary rendered the issues raised by his petition moot. We affirm.
In general, a case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer "live" or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982). At least two exceptions to the mootness doctrine have evolved: the "collateral consequences" exception and "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception. Id.; Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 181, 722 P.2d 490 (Ct.App.1986). Adams contends only that the "collateral consequences" exception is applicable here.
A criminal case will be found moot only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hoyle
...(1991). A third exception exists when the challenger continues to face an impact from the same dead issue. Adams v. Killeen, 115 Idaho 1034, 1035, 772 P.2d 241, 242 (Ct.App.1989). 1. Suppression Hoyle argued to the Court of Appeals that the warrants used to search his personal and real esta......
-
Adkins v. State
...of his conviction, no collateral consequences from fact that prison sentence set at particular length of time); Adams v. Killeen, 115 Idaho 1034, 772 P.2d 241, 242 (App.1989) (no collateral consequences where defendant, who challenged only conditions of detention, was transferred from jail ......
-
State v. Manley, Docket No. 28790 (ID 11/24/2004), Docket No. 28790.
...899, 900-01, 935 P.2d 162, 163-64 (1997); State v. Alldredge, 96 Idaho 7, 8, 523 P.2d 824, 825 (1974); Adams v. Killeen, 115 Idaho 1034, 1035, 772 P.2d 241, 242 (Ct. App. 1989); Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 181, 183, 722 P.2d 490, 492 (Ct. App. 1986). "[A] criminal case is moot only if is ......
-
Freeman v. IDAHO DEPT. OF CORRECTION
...Idaho 899, 900-01, 935 P.2d 162, 163-64 (1997); State v. Alldredge, 96 Idaho 7, 8, 523 P.2d 824, 825 (1974); Adams v. Killeen, 115 Idaho 1034, 1035, 772 P.2d 241, 242 (Ct.App.1989); Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 181, 183, 722 P.2d 490, 492 (Ct.App.1986). Second, an exception exists where th......