The Appellate Group

In re M.M.

In re M.M., 2026 UT App 105 (Harris, J.)

Juvenile Law

The Utah Court of Appeals held:

M.M.’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed to satisfy the “likely to recur” exception to the mootness doctrine because it is not likely, or possible, that an attorney in a similar position in the future will fail to oppose an argument that a juvenile’s prior contempt adjudications can qualify as prior misdemeanors for purposes of assessing whether the juvenile can be placed into custody pursuant to relevant statutory provisions.

Practice tip:

For purposes of showing an exception under the mootness doctrine, attorney behavior, is almost by definition, unlikely to recur in the future.

Read the full court opinion