Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court held that the case was moot when it issued its prior decision affirming Leland Jay Hemenway’s conviction because Hemenway had died before that decision. The court vacated its prior decision, the Court of Appeals decision, and the judgment of conviction, and dismissed the petition for reconsideration as moot. The court reached that result under both its lack of jurisdiction to decide moot cases and its equitable authority to order vacatur.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the case was moot when the Oregon Supreme Court issued its earlier decision affirming defendant's conviction.
- Whether the Oregon Supreme Court should vacate its earlier decision, the Court of Appeals decision, and the judgment of conviction because the case was moot before the decision issued.
- Whether vacatur was appropriate under the court's equitable powers notwithstanding the public interest in preserving the earlier decision.
Holdings
- The case was moot when the Oregon Supreme Court issued its decision affirming defendant's judgment of conviction because defendant had died before the decision and no practical controversy remained.
- The court should vacate its earlier decision, the Court of Appeals decision, and the judgment of conviction because the case was moot before the earlier decision issued.
Key quotations
“The motion before us involves the related but distinct issues of mootness and vacatur.” (at 500)
“Both the argument that we lacked jurisdiction and the argument that the equities favor vacatur lead to the same result here: This court’s January 10, 2013, opinion should be vacated.” (at 504)
“We conclude that we should vacate our decision in this case, whether the issue is analyzed as one of the court’s lack of jurisdiction to decide a moot case or as one of the court’s exercise of its equitable powers.” (at 506)
Factual background
Defendant had been convicted of possession of methamphetamine. The Oregon Supreme Court issued an earlier decision affirming that conviction on January 10, 2013, but defendant had died on January 27, 2012, without the court's knowledge. After learning of the death, defense counsel notified the court that the case was moot and moved to vacate the Supreme Court's decision and the judgment of conviction.
Procedural history
The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's judgment of conviction for possession of methamphetamine. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the conviction in an earlier decision, State v. Hemenway, 353 Or. 129, 295 P.3d 617 (2013). After learning that defendant had died more than a year before the Supreme Court's decision, defense counsel sought reconsideration and vacatur. The Supreme Court held the case was moot when it issued its earlier decision, vacated its own decision, vacated the Court of Appeals decision and the judgment of conviction, and dismissed the petition for reconsideration as moot.