Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. NORMAN KEITH CHASE, Appellant; STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. NORMAN KEITH CHASE, Appellant; STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff, v. NORMAN KEITH CHASE, Appellant, and Kenneth N. FELDMAN, F. Douglass Harcleroad, Lane County District Attorney's Office and Mary Doe, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1993-05-19
Citations: 120 Or. App. 523
Docket Number: 10-86-03551B; CA A66149; 10-86-03551X; CA A66233; 10-86-03551; CA A66370
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. NORMAN KEITH CHASE, Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. NORMAN KEITH CHASE, Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff, v. NORMAN KEITH CHASE, Appellant, and Kenneth N. FELDMAN, F. Douglass Harcleroad, Lane County District Attorney’s Office and Mary Doe, Respondents.
Judges: Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 120
Pages: 523–525

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted December 30,1992,
CA A66149 and CA A66233 dismissed as moot; CA A66370 affirmed May 19, 1993
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. NORMAN KEITH CHASE, Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. NORMAN KEITH CHASE, Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff, v. NORMAN KEITH CHASE, Appellant, and Kenneth N. FELDMAN, F. Douglass Harcleroad, Lane County District Attorney’s Office and Mary Doe, Respondents.
(10-86-03551B; CA A66149 (Control))
(10-86-03551X; CA A66233)
(10-86-03551; CA A66370)
(Cases Consolidated)
851 P2d 637
Irene B. Taylor, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.
Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents. On the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Carol J. Fredrick, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In CA A66149 and CA A66233, defendant appeals from an order that revoked his probation and executed a previously suspended sentence. ORS 138.040; ORS 138.053 (l)(f), (3). He argues that his probation was void and that the trial court erred in revoking it. He also argues that the court failed to advise him of his right to counsel in the probation revocation proceeding. The state asks us to dismiss the appeal as moot, because defendant has served the executed sentence and was discharged from parole. State v. Neidenbach, 300 Or 176, 178, 708 P2d 355 (1985). Defendant does not oppose the state's request for dismissal or identify any collateral consequences that might derive from the order if not vacated. See State v. Lincoln, 5 Or App 138, 483 P2d 92 (1971). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals from that order as moot.
Defendant also appeals in CA A66370 from an order dismissing what purports to be a civil action against a deputy district attorney. His assignments relating to that dismissal do not require discussion.
CA A66149 and CA A66233 dismissed as moot; CA A66370 affirmed.