Document: 404 U.S. 244 92 S.Ct. 402 30 L.Ed.2d 413 NORTH CAROLINA, Petitioner,v.Wayne Claude RICE. No. 70—77. Argued Oct. 12, 1971. Decided Dec. 14, Jacob L. Safron, Raleigh, N.C., for the petitioner. William W. Van Alstyne, Durham, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 On July 2, 1968, respondent Rice was arrested driving while intoxicated on a North Carolina state highway. He tried in General County Court of Buncombe County, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment nine months with sentence suspended upon payment $100 fine costs. appeal he de novo Superior Court, found guilty, two years' imprisonment. State post-conviction procedures were unavailing. from denial federal habeas corpus, Appeals Fourth Circuit held that under v Pearce, 395 711, 89 2072, 23 656 (1969), 'the more drastic second trial (was) Federal due process, by discouragement it impinges State-given appeal.' 434 F.2d 297, 300 (1970). Although '(h)e completely discharged January 24, 1970 * this did not moot case corpus' because injurious consequences conviction might still obtain. Ibid. The judgment entitled have record his expunged. State's petition writ certiorari granted. 401 1008, 91 1256, 28 544 (1971). 2 claims Pearce does apply situation where severe is imposed after its Court. We do reach question, however, since threshold issue mootness improperly disposed Appeals. neither party has urged moot, resolution question essential if courts are function within their constitutional sphere authority. Early history, had no power advisory opinions, Hayburn's Case, Dall. 409, L.Ed. 436 (1792), as interpreted Muskrat v. United States, 219 346, 351—353, 31 250, 251 252, 55 246 (1911), frequently repeated without decide questions cannot affect rights litigants before them. Local 8—6, Oil Chemical Atomic Workers Intern. Union Missouri, 361 363, 367, 80 391, 394, 4 373 (1960). To be cognizable court, suit 'must definite concrete, touching legal relations parties having adverse interests. It must real substantial controversy admitting specific relief through decree conclusive character, distinguished an opinion advising what law would hypothetical facts.' Aetna Life Ins. Co. Haworth, 227, 240—241, 57 461, 464, 81 617 (1937). However, '(m)oot require answer.' Kansas & Texas R. Ferris, 179 602, 606, 21 231, 233, 45 337 (1900). Mootness jurisdictional 'is empowered or abstract propositions,' States Alaska S.S. Co., 253 113, 116, 40 448, 449, 64 808 (1920), quoting California San Pablo Tulare 149 308, 314, 13 876, 878, 37 747 (1893); our impotence 'to review cases derives requirement Article III Constitution which exercise judicial depends existence controversy.' Liner Jafco, Inc., 375 301, 306 n. 3, 84 11 347 (1964). See also Powell McCormack, 486, 496 7, 1944, 1950, 491 (1969). Even arising courts, one court resolve assumes jurisdiction. Henry Mississippi, 379 443, 447, 85 564, 567, 408 (1965). supra, U.S., at 304, S.Ct., 393. 3 assumed mandated expunction Rice's conviction, unexpunged, collateral entitling challenge it. A number disabilities may attach convicted defendant even left prison,1 recognized standing such persons legality convictions when sentences been served.2 could clearer, invalidate resulted trial; went further than affirm ordering Pearce's release '(u) pon failure resentence 60 days *.' 714, 2075. (Emphasis added.) short, requires only resentencing; ipso facto set aside new required. higher vulnerable erased nor avoid flowing proper sentence. Respondent's sole claim thus related served came different therefore presented considered. Nullification important benefits defendant, outlined above, but urging corpus proceeding correction already another matter. Respondent first months, fine; years. In some jurisdictions, adjudicated either plea, then placed probation, sentenced, given sentence, statutes imposing criminal application.3 Elsewhere, sentencing follows adjudication guilt irrelevant purposes disability statutes.4 Since present deals standpoint vel non otherwise unilluminating whether there reduced inappropriate us deal now emerged. Accordingly, we vacate remand reconsideration mootness. So ordered. 5 Judgment vacated remanded. 6 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS below 297. disenfranchised, cf., e.g., Mont.Const., Art. IX, § 2; Mont.Rev.Codes Ann. 23—302 (1967); Okla.Const., III, 1; Okla.Stat.Ann., Tit. 26, 93.1 (Supp.1971—1972); lose right hold office, Del.Const., 21; 18 U.S.C. 204; barred entering certain professions, 7 12a(2)(B); D.C.Code §§ 47—2301 47—2350 subject impeachment testifying witness, Ark.Stat.Ann. 28—605 (1962); Ore.Rev.Stat. 44.020 (1963); disqualified serving juror, Idaho Const., 6, Code 2—202 (1948); Nev.Const., 4, 27, Nev.Rev.Stat. 6.010 divorce, W.Va.Code 48—2—4 (Supp.1971). generally Comment, Civil Disabilities Felons, 53 Va.L.Rev. 403 Note, Effect Expungement Criminal Conviction, S.Cal.L.Rev. 127 (1967). Pollard 352 354, 358, 77 481, 484, 393 (1957); Morgan, 346 502, 512—513, 74 247, 253—254 (1954); Fiswick 329 211, 222, 67 224, 230, 196 (1946); Carafas LaVallee, 391 234, 237—240, 88 1556, 1559—1561, 20 554 (1968). Special Project, Collateral Consequences Vand.L.Rev. 929, 954 97

Category: 8