State of New Hampshire v. Jason Vincent
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2016-0087, State of New Hampshire v. Jason
Vincent, the court on February 16, 2017, issued the following
order:
Having considered the defendant’s brief, the State’s memorandum of law,
and the State’s brief memorandum filed in response to our December 27, 2016
order, we conclude that a formal written opinion is not necessary in this case.
The defendant appeals the order of the Superior Court (Abramson, J.) denying
his release from the New Hampshire State Prison to a halfway house prior to his
eligibility for parole. See RSA 651:25, I (2016). We dismiss the appeal as moot.
According to the State’s brief memorandum, this appeal is moot. In its
memorandum of law filed on August 1, 2016, the State asserted that the
defendant would become eligible for parole on November 21, 2016. Consequently,
on December 27, 2016, the parties were ordered to file brief memoranda
concerning the defendant’s current incarceration status. In response, the State
represented that the defendant has been paroled. The defendant’s copy of the
December 27, 2016 order that was sent to the New Hampshire State Prison was
returned as undeliverable, with the notation “paroled.”
On January 13, 2017, a single justice of this court ordered the defendant
to file a brief memorandum on or before February 2, 2017, concerning his
current incarceration status and addressing the State’s assertion that this appeal
is moot. The clerk’s office sent copies of the December 27, 2016, and January
13, 2017 orders to the defendant, in care of his parole officer, at the address
listed on page 2 of the State’s brief memorandum.
The defendant has not filed a brief memorandum in response to the
January 13, 2017 order. Thus, based upon the State’s uncontested
representation that the defendant has been paroled, we dismiss this appeal as
moot. See Londonderry Sch. Dist. v. State, 157 N.H. 734, 736 (2008) (explaining
that “a matter is moot if it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because
issues involved have become academic or dead”).
Appeal dismissed.
DALIANIS, C.J., and HICKS, CONBOY, LYNN, and BASSETT, JJ.,
concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk