State of Idaho v. Stacey Dean James

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52775

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 6, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
STACEY DEAN JAMES, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bingham County. Hon. Stevan H. Thompson, District Judge.

Appeal from order revoking probation, dismissed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Stacey Dean James was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-
2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced James to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum
period of confinement of four years; suspended the sentence; and placed James on probation.
Subsequently, James admitted to violating some of the terms of his probation, and the district court
revoked probation and ordered execution of James’ sentence. However, the district court retained
jurisdiction and sent James to participate in the rider program. James appealed. Following

1
completion of the rider, James’ sentence was suspended and he was again placed on probation.
On appeal, James argues the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation.1
A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the defendant lacks
a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982); Bradshaw
v. State, 120 Idaho 429, 432, 816 P.2d 986, 989 (1991). Even where a question is moot, there are
three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal
consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely
to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue
raises concerns of substantial public interest. State v. Barclay, 149 Idaho 6, 8, 232 P.3d 327, 329
(2010). The relief James has requested on appeal cannot be granted because she has been already
served her sentences. Therefore, any judicial relief from this Court would have no effect on either
party. See id.
Therefore, the appeal from the order revoking probation and directing execution of James’s
previously suspended sentence is dismissed.

1
James was also found guilty of and sentenced for a misdemeanor. However, that judgment
of conviction and sentence are not at issue in this appeal.

2