Case ID: or-app_189/html/0528-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted August 27,
    appeal dismissed September 17, 2003
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. BENITO BALDEZ, aka Benny Valdez, Appellant.
    
    00-03-32249; A114664
    76 P3d 685
    Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was David E. Groom, Acting Executive Director, Office of Public Defense Services.
    Doug M. Petrina, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
    Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Brewer, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction on one count of delivery of a controlled substance and one count of possession of a controlled substance. The trial court imposed departure sentences of six months in prison and 24 months of post-prison supervision on the delivery conviction and a concurrent sentence of six months in prison and 12 months of post-prison supervision on the possession conviction. On appeal, defendant challenges only the sentence imposed, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing the departure sentences. He asks that we reverse and remand for resent-encing. In the meantime, defendant finished serving the sentences. The state moved for summary affirmance on the ground that the appeal has become moot. Defendant does not argue to the contrary, but he observes that the proper disposition of the appeal is not to affirm but to dismiss. We agree with defendant. State v. Dick, 169 Or App 649, 650, 10 P3d 315 (2000) (dismissing the defendant’s challenge to trial court revocation of probation as moot because the defendant had served his sentence).

Appeal dismissed.