Mootness; Effect of defendant’s deportation & apparent disinterest in pursuing the appeal

Holding that defendant’s post-conviction deportation and apparent lack of interest in pursuing his appeal rendered it moot, the court dismissed the appeal on this basis. He sought a new trial after being convicted of first-degree home invasion. The parties did not dispute that he was deported “after being convicted in federal court of unlawful re-entry after removal.” In a motion to extend the time for filing a brief, his appellate counsel indicated “that defendant was deported to El Salvador before” the appointment of current appellate counsel, that she had been unable to confer with him, and that she was trying to locate him. She had “not indicated that these attempts were successful or that she was able to confer with defendant. Defendant appears to have shown no interest in pursuing an appeal of his conviction.” Under the circumstances, the court concluded it did not appear that a decision on the merits of his appellate counsel’s arguments “could have any practical effect on the matter and would instead involve us rendering a decision on matters not actually contested by defendant.” It also noted that it was troubled by the fact that he had “not been able to participate, or even discuss with appellate counsel potential issues in his current appeal.” Although the court recognized the adverse effects of a conviction for him if he tries to re-enter the country, “it would be best to decide whatever appellate issues defendant may raise when he has an opportunity to actually participate in his defense.”