State v. Wilson

Decision Date15 October 1975
Docket NumberNo. 2--57791,2--57791
Citation234 N.W.2d 140
CourtIowa Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Jessie B. WILSON, Appellant.

Robert E. Mahan, Waterloo, for appellant.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Nancy J. Shimanek, Asst. Atty. Gen., and David Dutton, County Atty., for appellee.

Submitted to MOORE, C.J., and MASON, LeGRAND, HARRIS and McCORMICK, JJ.

MOORE, Chief Justice.

Defendant, Jessie B. Wilson appeals denial of his application for postconviction relief. We dismiss the appeal.

On October 1, 1973 defendant, with counsel, entered a plea of guilty to assasult with intent to commit a felony, to wit: manslaughter. Code section 694.5. On November 15, 1973 defendant was sentenced to one year in the Black Hawk County Jail. Under the terms of the sentence defendant was to serve the first 120 days under the jail work release provisions of Code chapter 356, and if he did not violate its terms and upon good behavior, the balance of the sentence would be suspended. Judge Engelkes explained to defendant he would be confined to the county jail during the first four months except such time he would spend on his job. Defendant and his counsel were directed to the court services probation office where defendant was to have completed the work release schedule. Without doing so defendant left Iowa the next day after the sentencing. He was arrested in Adrian, Michigan, May 10 and returned to the Black Hawk County Jail on May 14, 1974 at which time Judge Engelkes entered an order terminating defendant's work release privileges.

On September 12, 1974 defendant filed an application in Black Hawk District Court attacking the May 14 revocation order on the ground he had not been given notice and a hearing prior thereto. On October 17, 1974 defendant's application was heard and denied. Notice of appeal therefrom was given November 15, 1974.

The record discloses defendant completed his one year jail term and was released prior to submission of this appeal. Thus we are faced with a question of mootness as defendant's appeal challenges only the propriety of the work release revocation. No issue is raised regarding the validity of the guilty plea, the sentence or other matters which affect defendant's reputational interest or cause him any collateral legal disadvantage beyond the sentence. This appeal does not present a matter of significant public interest or precedent as found in Danner v. Hass, 257 Iowa 654, 134 N.W.2d 534 where we exercised our discretion and decided an issue which was otherwise moot.

In general an action is moot if it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or nonexistent. A case is moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon the existing controversy. Board of Directors Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Green, 259 Iowa 1260, 1264, 147 N.W.2d 854, 856, and citations. See also 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, sections 760--768; 24A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1833 and Annot., 9 A.L.R.3d 462.

In People v. Beathea, 24 Ill.App.3d 460, 321 N.E.2d 458, 464, defendant challenged the lower court's refusal to let her out of jail on work release. At pages 463--464, 321 N.E.2d, the court concluded:

'Here, defendant does not seek a reversal of her conviction, but requests only that her case be remanded for resentencing or, in the alternative, remanded for hearing for placement on the work release program. Even if we were to grant defendant's prayer for relief, it would in no way benefit her. Defendant has already been paroled and being admitted to the work release program would require her to again be incarcerated. A remandment for resentencing at this time would not serve any useful function to ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Watkins v. Class
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 26 d3 Março d3 1997
    ...a justiciable controversy, or if the judgment lacks a " 'practical legal effect,' " an action is moot. Id. (quoting State v. Wilson, 234 N.W.2d 140, 141 (Iowa 1975)). ¶35 Although this Court possesses the "discretion to consider moot questions if they are of general public importance, have ......
  • Moeller v. Solem
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 9 d3 Janeiro d3 1985
    ...from prison following the service of his sentence, and we held that the appeal was therefore rendered moot. We cited State v. Wilson, 234 N.W.2d 140, 141 (Iowa 1975), for the proposition that "an action is moot if it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved h......
  • State v. Beyer, 59816
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 19 d3 Outubro d3 1977
    ...is moot when the issues it presents are merely academic, and any judgment rendered can have no practical legal effect. State v. Wilson, 234 N.W.2d 140, 141 (Iowa 1975), and citations. Ordinarily we will not decide moot questions unless the issue presented is of substantial public interest, ......
  • City of Dubuque v. Public Employment Relations Bd.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 19 d3 Outubro d3 1983
    ...have become academic so that judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon the existing controversy. State v. Wilson, 234 N.W.2d 140, 141 (Iowa 1975). Here, however, the issues may not be academic. The board's brief asserts that "whatever monetary benefits might have been ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT