1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 35162

LESTER D. JONES,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF IDAHO,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 576

Filed: August 5, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Idaho County. Hon. John H. Bradbury, District Judge. 

Appeal from order dismissing application for post-conviction relief, dismissed. 

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

______________________________________________

PERRY, Judge Pro Tem

Lester D. Jones appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his application for postconviction relief. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss Jones’s appeal as moot.

Jones pleaded guilty to lewd conduct with a minor in 1998. Jones appealed from his 

judgment of conviction and this Court affirmed. State v. Jones, 132 Idaho 439, 974 P.2d 85 (Ct. 

App. 1999). 

Jones filed this application for post-conviction relief in December 2007. In his 

application Jones alleged that his trial counsel had been ineffective. The state filed an answer 

and a motion for summary dismissal. Four days later, without providing any further notice to 

Jones, the district court dismissed Jones’s application. Jones appealed.

On appeal Jones raised one issue: “Did the district court err in granting the State’s 

Motion for Summary Dismissal without providing Mr. Jones with twenty days to respond to the 

State’s purported reasons for dismissal?” For relief, Jones requested that the district court’s 
2

order be vacated and his case remanded for further proceedings in the district court. In response,

the state conceded the district court erred and filed a motion for remand to the district court for 

proper notice to be afforded Jones. The Idaho Supreme Court granted the state’s motion and 

remanded the case, instructing the district court to provide Jones with the requisite time to 

respond to the state’s motion and brief for summary dismissal. Jones’s appeal was suspended 

until the district court filed its order upon remand. 

On remand, the district court held a hearing on June 4, 2009, where it recognized the 

error and granted Jones twenty days to respond to the state’s motion to dismiss. Jones filed a 

one-page document notifying the district court that he would submit the matter on the alreadyexisting record. The district court held a second hearing on July 16 at which Jones’s counsel 

restated his intention not to respond further. The district court again dismissed Jones’s 

application. 

Upon receiving the district court’s order, the Supreme Court reactivated Jones’s appeal. 

Appellate counsel for Jones was given leave to withdraw, and the Court reset the briefing 

schedule to provide Jones with an opportunity to file a supplemental brief. Jones did not file any 

additional briefing. The state thereafter filed its respondent’s brief, arguing that Jones’s only 

appealed issue was rendered moot by the actions taken by the district court on remand. 

An issue is moot if it presents no justiciable controversy and a judicial determination will 

have no practical effect upon the outcome of the case. Comm. for Rational Predator Mgmt. v. 

Dep’t of Agric., 129 Idaho 670, 672, 931 P.2d 1188, 1190 (1997); Idaho Schs. for Equal. Educ. 

Opportunity v. Idaho St. Bd. of Educ., 128 Idaho 276, 281, 912 P.2d 644, 649 (1996); Storm v. 

Spaulding, 137 Idaho 145, 148, 44 P.3d 1200, 1203 (Ct. App. 2002); Russell v. Fortney, 111 

Idaho 181, 182, 722 P.2d 490, 491 (Ct. App. 1986). Additionally, if the issues presented are no 

longer live and if the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome, those issues are 

not justiciable, but are moot and thereby review is ordinarily precluded. Freeman v. Idaho Dep’t 

of Corr., 138 Idaho 872, 875, 71 P.3d 471, 474 (Ct. App. 2003). A party lacks a legally 

cognizable interest in the outcome when even a favorable judicial decision would not result in 

relief. Id. Whether a case should be dismissed for mootness is a question of law, subject to free 

review. Storm, 137 Idaho at 148, 44 P.3d at 1203. 

In this case, we agree with the position of the state. At the time he filed his appeal, Jones 

asserted only that the district court had failed to provide him with the required notice to respond 
3

to the state’s motion to dismiss. The state agreed, and the appeal was suspended and remanded 

to allow the district court to correct this error. Upon remand, Jones received the very remedy he 

sought when proper notice was provided. Thereafter, when his appeal was reactivated, Jones did 

not file a supplemental brief challenging the district court’s dismissal on any other grounds. 

Therefore, Jones does not present a live controversy, and any favorable judicial decision from 

this Court would not afford him any relief that he has not already been given.

Jones’s appeal is moot. Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed. No costs or attorney fees 

are awarded on appeal.

Chief Judge LANSING and Judge GRATTON, CONCUR.