Opinion ID: 4521112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 3d 135 (quotation marks omitted).

Text: 5 [¶10] Here, without question, K.’s appeal is moot. K. is not presently at the mental health unit of the Maine State Prison, is no longer subject to the court’s August 12, 2019, involuntary treatment order, and has since been found not competent to stand trial on the underlying criminal charges. As a result, the issues raised in K.’s appeal “have lost their controversial vitality, and [a] decision would not provide [the] appellant any real or effective relief.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Unless an exception to the mootness doctrine applies, we must dismiss the appeal. [¶11] We recognize three exceptions to the mootness doctrine and may consider an appeal that is moot if (1) sufficient collateral consequences will result from the determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief; (2) the appeal contains questions of great public concern that, in the interest of providing future guidance to the bar and public[,] we may address; or (3) the issues are capable of repetition but evade review because of their fleeting or determinate nature. A.I. v. State, 2020 ME 6, ¶ 9, --- A.3d --- (quotation marks omitted). Although K. contends that the “questions of great public concern” and “issues capable of repetition” exceptions apply to this appeal, we are not persuaded that either exception applies. [¶12] “When addressing the exception for questions of great public concern, we examine whether the question is public or private, how much 6 court officials need an authoritative determination for future rulings, and how likely the question is to recur.” A.I., 2020 ME 6, ¶ 11, --- A.3d --- (quotation marks omitted). In K.’s appeal, we agree that the involuntary medical treatment of inmates in the State’s correctional facilities, generally, is a matter of “great public concern.” However, our consideration of the issues raised by K. regarding evidentiary and procedural errors during the involuntary treatment proceeding are unlikely to provide “an authoritative determination for future rulings,” id. (quotation marks omitted), as these issues “relate more directly to the private interests of an individual in unique circumstances,” In re Involuntary Treatment of S., 2019 ME 161, ¶ 9, 221 A.3d 135 (quotation marks omitted). [¶13] Nor are the issues presented in this appeal ones that “may be repeatedly presented to the trial court, yet escape review at the appellate level because of [their] fleeting or determinate nature.” Id. ¶ 11 (quotation marks omitted). In similar involuntary treatment proceedings, we have recognized that, “when there is a clearly looming issue of mootness, the best practice is to move for expeditious appellate review.” In re Steven L., 2017 ME 5, ¶ 9, 153 A.3d 764 (quotation marks omitted). Here, K. did not move for an expedited appellate review before the expiration of the court’s August 12, 2019, 7 involuntary treatment order. Further, this is not a case where the issues raised by K. are before us for a second time. See id. ¶ 10 (applying the issues capable of repetition exception when the “specific issues” were presented to us on appeal for a second time). [¶14] Therefore, we conclude that neither exception to the mootness doctrine applies and decline to reach the merits of the issues raised in K.’s appeal. The entry is: Appeal dismissed. Jeremy Pratt, Esq. (orally), and Ellen Simmons, Esq., Camden, for appellant K. Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Kimberly L. Patwardhan, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Corrections Knox County Superior Court docket number MH-2019-8 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY