State v. F. T.

To determine whether an issue is “likely to evade review,” the question is not whether a person in youth’s same circumstances would also fail to obtain appellate review, but “whether the general type or category of challenge at issue is likely to evade being fully litigated.” Eastern Oregon Mining Association v. DEQ, 360 Or 10, 17, 376 P3d 288 (2016)

Youth appealed a juvenile court’s order committing her to the Oregon Youth Authority for placement in a youth correction facility to serve time for both a Class A and Class B misdemeanor. On appeal, appellant assigned err to the juvenile court’s decision to assign time for the Class B misdemeanor. Youth argues that ORS 420.011 prohibits the juvenile court from assigning time for Class B misdemeanors. Because Youth already served the entirety of her time, the question on appeal is whether the case is moot. Appellant argues that this dispute is one that is “likely to evade judicial review in the future.” ORS 14.175(3). In response, the state argues that this is not an issue likely to evade review. To determine whether an issue is “likely to evade review,” the question is not whether a person in youth’s same circumstances would also fail to obtain appellate review, but “whether the general type or category of challenge at issue is likely to evade being fully litigated.” Eastern Oregon Mining Association v. DEQ, 360 Or 10, 17, 376 P3d 288 (2016). Dismissed as moot.