This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO , 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3
v. NO. 34,969 4 JERI STEVENS, 5 Defendant-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 Sandra A. Price, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 John Kloss, Assistant Attorney General 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellant 13 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 KENNEDY, Judge. 182 {1} The State appeals following the district court’s entry of findings of fact and 1 conclusions of law and remand order to the magistrate court for correction of its 2 judgment and sentence. [DS 1; RP 64–66] This Court issued a notice proposing to 3 dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. [1 CN 1,4] Following the State’s 4 memorandum in opposition, in which the State argued this Court has jurisdiction to 5 hear its appeal [1 MIO 4–11], this Court issued a second notice proposing to dismiss 6 the appeal on mootness grounds [2 CN 1, 4]. The State filed a second memorandum 7 in opposition, which we have duly consid ered. Remaining unpersuaded, we decline 8 to exercise our discretion to consider the i ssue in this case, and we dismiss the appeal 9 as moot. 10 {2} As we pointed out in our second proposed disposition, it appears Defendant 11 completed her probation on April 28, 2015, and the State’s argument became moot 12 when Defendant completed her probationary period. [CN 2–3] As we noted in our last 13 notice proposing to dismiss, this Court “ mayreview moot cases that present issues of 14 (1) substantial public interest or (2) wh ich are capable of repetition yet evading 15 review.” Cobb v. N.M. State Canvassing Bd. , 2006-NMSC-034, ¶ 14, 140 N.M. 77, 16 140 P.3d 498 (emphasis added). The State argue s we should consider the issue raised 17 in its appeal because the issu e presented is a matter of s ubstantial public interest and 18 presents an issue capable of repetition yet evading review. [2 MIO 4–5] However, as 19 we noted in our proposed disposition, “[t]he Court’s review of moot cases that either 203 raise an issue of substantial public intere st or are capable of repetition yet evading 1 review is discretionary.” Republican Party of New Mexico v. N.M. Taxation and 2 Revenue Dep’t , 2012-NMSC-026, ¶ 10, 283 P.3d 853, citing Cobb v. N.M. State 3 Canvassing Bd. , 2006-NMSC-034, ¶ 14 (noting the Court “ mayreview moot cases” 4 that fall within either of the two excepti ons (emphasis added)). Despite the State’s 5 arguments, we decline to review the case. 6 {3} We therefore exercise our discretion to decline to review the issue and dismiss 7 this case as moot. 8 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

_______________________________ 10 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 11 WE CONCUR: 12

___________________________________ 13 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 14

_________________________________ 15 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 16