No. 86-119 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1986 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vsEDWARD LEE FOREST, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Missoula, 

The Honorable Douglas Harkin, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant : 

Ian Christopherson, Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Robert I,. Deschamps, 111, County Attorney, Missoula, 

Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: July 31, 1986 

Decided: December 16, I986 

Filed: DEC 16 1986 

Clerk 
Mr. Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

On October 21, 1985, a motion for order of commitment 

was filed in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, seeking to compel Edward Lee Forest 

to serve the remainder of his jail sentence. Forest filed a 

brief opposing the motion in which he attacked the validity 

of the original sentence imposed on him. The District Court 

granted the motion and ordered Forest to serve the remainder 

of his sentence. Forest appeals from that order. 

An information was filed in the District Court against 

Edward Forest on May 26, 1983, alleging in Count I that he 

violated § 61-8-401, MCA, driving a motor vehicle under the 

influence of alcohol, a third offense, and in Count I1 that 

he violated § 61-5-102, MCA, operating a motor vehicle without a valid. driver's license. On August 15, 1983, a second 

information was filed alleging that Forest again violated 

§§ 61-8-401 and 61-5-102, MCA. He initially pled not guilty 

to all four counts, but on December 28 he withdrew his not 

guilty pleas and pled guilty to each count. Sentencing 

occurred on April 30, 1984. 

In its judgment in Missoula County Cause No. 6373 

(assigned from the information filed on May 26), the court 

sentenced Forest to one year in the county jail with all but 

three months of the sentence suspended on Count 1 and to six 

months in the county jail with all but fifteen days of the 

sentence suspended on Count 11. The same sentence was entered in Missoula County Cause No. 6441 (assigned from the 

information filed on August 15). The sentences were to run 

consecutive with each other and with the sentences in each 

cause. Forest did not appeal from these judgments. 
Forest was released from jail on September 18, 1984, 

after serving 142 days of his sentence; however, his release 

was subject to several conditions. Subsequently, the deputy 

county attorney filed a petition for revocation of probation, 

and at the hearing on the matter, Forest admitted the allegations of the petition. Under an order dated April 15, 1985, 

and entered in both causes, the court revoked Forest's prior 

suspended sentence and ordered him to serve nine months and 

five days in the county jail. The terms and conditions of 

probation on the original sentence of April 30, 1984, were 

continued in full force and effect. No appeal. was taken from 

this judgment either. 

In July 1985, Forest was temporarily released from 

custody in order to attend a thirty-day alcohol rehabilitation and treatment program. He successfully completed the 

program, but he failed to return to serve the balance of his 

jail term. The deputy county attorney filed a motion for an 

order of commitment on October 21, 1985, requesting that 

Forest be ordered to serve the remainder of his jail sentence. By memorandum and order dated January 20, 1986, the 

District Court granted the motion for commitment. 

In its order, the court stated that the judgment of 

April 30, 1984, is the basis of the court's authority over 

Forest. That judgment extended jurisdiction over him until 

April 30, 1987. Therefore, the conditions of probation 

imposed by the original sentence were to remain in effect 

until April 1987. Forest timely filed a notice of appeal 

from this order. 

During the pendency of this appeal, Forest served. the 

balance of his jail sentence. By order of the District 

Court, he was released from incarceration on October 8, 1986. 
Defendant raises three issues in his appeal: 

1. Did the District Court err by failing to give 

defendant credit for the time he had already served prior to 

revocation of his sentence? 

2. Was the order of January 20, 1986, committing 

defendant to serve the balance of the sentence imposed under 

the April 1985 judgment, invalid for the reason that defendant had already completed the sentence imposed on him by the 

April 1984 judgment? 

3. Did the District Court err by attempting to assert 

jurisdiction over defendant until April 1987? 

It is unnecessary for us to decide the first two issues 

because they have been rendered moot. Defendant does not 

contest the correctness of the underlying judgments. Rather, 

the gist of his argument is that he should not have been 

compelled by the January 20 order to serve any further jail 

time because the court did not properly credit him with the 

time previously served and because he had already served the 

remainder of the original sentence imposed. Since defendant 

has now completed the balance of the sentence imposed by the 

April 1985 judgment and has been released from incarceration, 

any discussion on these two issues would be purely academic. 

It is well settled that this Court will decide issues only 

when they have some practical effect on a party; we will not 

decide questions that have mere theoretical significance. 

Defendant contends in his third issue that the District 

Court erred in asserting jurisdiction over him until April 

30, 1987. It is likewise unnecessary for us to consider this 

issue because, in the State's response to defendant's answer 

to motion to dismiss for mootness, filed October 30, 1986, 

the State concedes that it will not seek to enforce the 
conditions of probation imposed on defendant under the 

court's original order for the period between October 8, 

1986, and April 30, 1987. Therefore, this issue is also 

moot. 

Remanded to the District Court with instructions to 

release defendant from its probation jurisdiction effective 

October 8, 1986, the date of his release from custody. 

We concur: