Allenbrand v. Zubin Darius Contractor
| Decision Date | 09 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 67,949,67,949 |
| Citation | 855 P.2d 926,253 Kan. 315 |
| Parties | Fred ALLENBRAND, Sheriff of Johnson County, Kansas, Appellee, v. ZUBIN DARIUS CONTRACTOR, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Courts are statutorily and constitutionally without authority to render advisory opinions in cases found to be moot. A case is moot when no further controversy exists between the parties and where any judgment of the court would be without effect.
2. A case is not moot when there is an existing controversy requiring adjudication and not an abstract proposition requiring an advisory opinion. Mootness is a question of court policy, founded upon the proposition that, except when under some statutory duty to do so, courts do not sit for the purpose of giving opinions upon abstract questions not involving actual controversy.
3. An exception to the general rule regarding whether a case is moot exists if the case involves a question of public interest. Appellate courts are inclined to retain an appeal on this basis if the question involves one that is likely to arise frequently in the future unless it is settled by a court of last resort.
4. Under the facts of this case, the question of whether the defendant was denied due process in a proceeding that determined he could be medicated with psychotropic drugs without his consent while in custody becomes moot when he is no longer in custody and his potential reincarceration will not present the same controversy.
Kevin P. Moriarty, of Moriarty, Erker & Moore, Overland Park, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Lawrence L. Ferree III, of Ferree, Bunn & Byrum, Chartered, Overland Park, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The defendant, Zubin Darius Contractor, appeals from an order authorizing the involuntary administration to him of psychotropic medication while he was an inmate at the Johnson County Adult Detention Center (JCADC). Because of a change in circumstances, the issue of whether the order violates his due process rights has become moot. His appeal is therefore dismissed.
The defendant was incarcerated at the JCADC upon a misdemeanor conviction of providing alcohol to a minor. While incarcerated, the defendant caused serious disruption. In testimony before the district court, the plaintiff's witnesses described four weeks of continuous destructive behavior by the defendant. The findings of fact by the court reflect a potential for real harm to the defendant from the defendant's unsanitary conduct and from other inmates who were angered and frustrated by the defendant's relentless antisocial behavior.
In its memorandum decision, the court relates in detail the specific facts on which it based its order permitting involuntary medication. Based on these circumstances, the court ordered that the sheriff be "authorized to administer ... appropriate medication ... on an involuntary basis ... during the time defendant is in the custody of the Johnson County Adult Detention Center...." The defendant appealed that order to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
Before any medication was administered to the defendant, he was released on probation on April 6, 1992. In response to a show cause order issued by the Kansas Court of Appeals asking the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot, the sheriff claimed that probation, if revoked, would again place the defendant in the custody of the JCADC, subject to the involuntary medication order. The appeal was retained, but the mootness issue was not resolved.
The parties' responses to the show cause order indicated that on April 6, 1992, the defendant was granted probation for a period of 12 months. In the absence of any further information, it may be assumed that on April 6, 1993, the defendant's probation ended. Upon oral argument, neither party advised the court that this was not the case. If the defendant no longer is on probation, he no longer is subject to the control of the court. Thus, the allegation that his probation status is a basis for retaining the appeal no longer is persuasive.
Even if the defendant still is on probation, his return to custody does not create the same controversy. The involuntary medication order is fact-specific, based on findings made by the court involving the defendant's actions in the past. The order entered by the court would not authorize involuntary medication upon future incarceration of the defendant in the JCADC.
Because the defendant no longer is in custody and his potential reincarceration will not present the same controversy, the issue of whether he was denied due process in a proceeding that determined he could be medicated without his consent while in custody is moot. In State ex rel. Stephan v. Johnson, 248 Kan. 286, Syl. p 3, 807 P.2d 664 (1991), we held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roat
...embraced one or the other of these positions without acknowledging the existence of the other. See, e.g., Allenbrand v. Zubin Darius Contractor , 253 Kan. 315, 317, 855 P.2d 926 (1993) ; Sheila A. v. Finney , 253 Kan. 793, 796-97, 861 P.2d 120 (1993) (mootness is jurisdictional); Board of C......
-
Junction City Educ. Ass'n v. Board of Educ., Unified School Dist. No. 475, Geary County
...this appeal moot, see Shanks v. Nelson, 258 Kan. 688, 907 P.2d 882 (1995), this case appears to warrant an exception. In Allenbrand v. Contractor, 253 Kan. 315, Syl. p 3, 855 P.2d 926 (1993), we recognized an exception to the general rule regarding appellate review of moot issues: "An excep......
-
Hopkins v. Hamby Corp.
...partitions and listing cases). 2. See Chastain v. Baker, 255 Ga. 432, 339 S.E.2d 241 (1986). 3. See Allenbrand v. Zubin Darius Contractor, 253 Kan. 315, 855 P.2d 926 (1993). 4. See Collins v. Lombard Corp., 270 Ga. 120, 508 S.E.2d 653 5. See, e.g., Westark Christian Action Council v. Stodol......
-
Patel v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 73869
...any action by the board to revoke his license would have no effect. Our Supreme Court discussed the concept of mootness in Allenbrand v. Contractor, 253 Kan. 315, Syl. p 1, 855 P.2d 926 (1993): "Courts are statutorily and constitutionally without authority to render advisory opinions in cas......
-
Kansas Appellate Advocacy an Inside View of Common-sense Strategy
...19 Kan. App. 2d 686, 691, 875 P.2d 986, rev. denied 255 Kan. 1005 (1994). [FN73]. See, e.g., Allenbrand v. Zubin Darius Contractors, 253 Kan. 315, 855 P.2d 926 (1993). [FN74]. City of Overland Park v. Barron, 234 Kan. 522, Syl. ¶ 1, 672 P.2d 1100 (1983); Thompson v. Amis, 208 Kan. 658, 661,......