Reddy v Kosrae [2003] FMSC 14; 11 FSM Intrm. 595 (App. 2003) (26 May 2003)

FSM SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION
Cite as Reddy v. Kosrae
[2003] FMSC 14; 11 FSM Intrm. 595 (App. 2003)

[FSM Intrm 595]

RICHARD REDDY,
Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF KOSRAE,
Appellee.

APPEAL CASE NO. K2-2000

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Decided: May 26, 2003

BEFORE:

Hon. Andon L. Amaraich, Chief Justice, FSM Supreme Court
Hon. Martin Yinug, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court
Hon. Dennis K. Yamase, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court

[FSM Intrm. 595]

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant: Ron Moroni, Esq.
P.O. Box 1618
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Bail; Constitutional Law - Case or Dispute - Mootness
When an appeal was from an order revoking pretrial release and the issue on appeal was the right to pretrial release, the appellant’s subsequent conviction and release makes the appeal moot. Reddy v. Kosrae, [2003] FMSC 14; 11 FSM Intrm. 595, 596 (App. 2003).

Appellate Review - Decisions Reviewable; Constitutional Law - Case or Dispute - Mootness
No justiciable controversy is presented if events subsequent to the filing of an appeal make the issues presented moot, and an appellate court may receive proof or take notice of facts outside the record for determining whether a question presented to it is moot. Reddy v. Kosrae, [2003] FMSC 14; 11 FSM Intrm. 595, 596-97 (App. 2003).

Appellate Review - Decisions Reviewable; Appellate Review - Dismissal; Constitutional Law - Case or Dispute - Mootness
The court is without jurisdiction to consider and will dismiss a moot appeal. Reddy v. Kosrae, [2003] FMSC 14; 11 FSM Intrm. 595, 597 (App. 2003).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This was an appeal from a May 9, 2000 Kosrae State Court order revoking pretrial bail and returning the appellant, Richard Reddy, to custody.

Although not in the record, the following events occurred shortly thereafter: On May 16, 2000, the trial court accepted Reddy’s guilty plea to one count and dismissed all other charges against him. The trial court sentenced Reddy to pay $25,100 in restitution and to remain in custody at the Kosrae state jail until the restitution was paid in full. Reddy paid that sum the same day and was released and has left the FSM. Reddy’s counsel orally informed the single justice’s clerk of these events. He, however, neglected to file papers to dismiss the appeal under Appellate Rule 42(b), as diligent and responsible attorneys would normally do. On May 17, 2000, the trial court issued an order noting that Reddy had satisfied the judgment and lifting his travel restrictions.

Since this was an appeal from an order revoking pretrial release and the issue on appeal was Reddy’s right to pretrial release, Reddy’s subsequent conviction and release makes this appeal moot.

"No justiciable controversy is presented if events subsequent to the filing of an appeal make the issues presented moot." Wainit v. Weno, [2002] FMCSC 21; 10 FSM Intrm. 601, 610 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2002). "Furthermore, an appellate court may receive proof or take notice of facts outside the record for determining whether a question presented to it is moot." Id. We hereby take judicial notice of Reddy’s

[FSM Intrm. 597]

conviction and release. Cf. Welson v. FSM, [1992] FMSC 14; 5 FSM Intrm. 281, 284 (App. 1992) (judicial notice may be taken by appellate court).

Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal, Fritz v. National Election Dir., [2003] FMSC 37; 11 FSM Intrm. 442, 444 (App. 2003); FSM v. Louis, [2000] FMSC 39; 9 FSM Intrm. 474, 481-82 (App. 2000), and it is hereby dismissed as moot.

* * * *