1 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 1 2 3, 4 56

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

S TATE OF K ANSAS , Appellee ,

v.

B RANDON S. T ALLCHIEF , Appellant

.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; E RIC A. C OMMER , judge. Opinion filed December 10,
2021

. Appeal dismissed

.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 202 0 Supp. 21

- 6820(g) and (h).

B efore A TCHESON , P

. J., C LINE and H URST , J J.

P ER C URIAM : Brandon S. Tallchief appeals the district court's decision revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentence. This court granted Tallchief's motion for summary disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. C t. R. 48). The State filed a response . Since filing his notice of appeal, Tallchief concedes that he served his sentence. This court cannot grant Tallchief's request for relief because he completed his sentence and asserts no meaningful consequence or futu re interest that would be impaired by dismissal of his appeal as moot.2 F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND

Tallchief pled guilty to three counts of domestic battery

. The district court
sentenced him to six months in jail on each count to be served concur rently, but instead of jail imposed the same amount of probation

. Later, t he State alleged Tallchief violated the terms of his probation by committing new crimes and failing to comply with his no
contact order

. Tallchief admitted the violations and the district court revoked his probation, ordering Tallchief "[t]o serve the balance of his 6 month sentence in jail ."

D ISCUSSION

Tallchief argues that the district court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve his underlying sentence rather than reinstating probation. However, he concedes
that he has satisfied his full sentence in this case and that his appeal is likely moot. The State agrees that Tallchief has satisfied his sentence and asserts that his appeal is moot because he cannot obtain the relief he requests

— the imposition of probation.

Generally , Kansas appellate courts do not decide moot questions or render
advisor y opinions. State v. Montgomery , 295 Kan. 837, 840, 286 P.3d 866 (2012)

. A n issue is moot if " ' it is clearly and convincingly shown the actual controversy has ended, the only judgment that could be entered would be ineffectual for any purpose, and it
would not impact any of the parties ' rights

. '" 295 Kan. at 840

- 41

. M ootness is a prudential

court doctrine, so appellate review is unlimited. State v. Hilton , 295 Kan. 845, 849, 286 P.3d 871 (2012)

.

Here, both parties agree that Tallchief has served his sentence. But our Kansas Supreme Court h eld that an appeal cannot be dismissed as moot simply because a defendant has completed their sentence. State v. Roat , 311 Kan. 581, 592, 466 P.3d 439 (2020) . Instead, " a determination of mootness must

. . . include analysis of whether an appellate judgment on the merits would have meaningful consequences for any purpose,3 including future implications. " 311 Kan. at 592

. However, if a party fails to assert meaningful consequences or future implications precluding dismi ssal, then the case may be dismissed as moot. See S tate v. Mayes , 311 Kan. 615, 617, 465 P.3d 1141 (2020) (dismissing case when the defendant served the entire sentence and asserted no right that would be affected by dismissal).

Tallchief concedes that h is case is moot and he advances no interest that would be impaired by dismissal

. E ven if this court addresses the merits of Tallchief's appeal and is persuaded, this court could not grant his request for probation because he has served his

sentence. See St ate v. Kinder , 307 Kan. 237, 243, 408 P.3d 114 (2018) (stating that a defendant in a criminal case cannot be placed on probation if they ha ve served the underlying term of the sentence). For these reasons, this court dismiss es Tallchief's appeal as moot.

Appeal d ismissed.