
    2012 UT App 363
    STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Charles Brandon PETERSON, Defendant and Appellant.
    No. 20110682-CA.
    Court of Appeals of Utah.
    Dec. 20, 2012.
    
      Debra M. Nelson and Kerri S. Priano, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
    Mark L. Shurtleff and Kenneth A. Bron-ston, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
    Before Judges ORME, MeHUGH, and CHRISTIANSEN.
   MEMORANDUM DECISION

McHUGH, Judge:

T1 Charles Brandon Peterson challenges his sentence of 860 days in jail for one count of possession or use of a controlled substance, a third degree felony. See Utah Code Ann. § 58-87-8(2)(a)i) (LexisNexis 2012). We dismiss the appeal as moot.

T2 Peterson appeals his sentence on the basis that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to jail because it did so without a presentence report and did not rely on reasonably reliable and relevant information. In sentencing Peterson on June 27, 2011, to 360 days in jail, the trial court gave him credit for time served and invited Peterson to petition the court for early release if he successfully completed a drug treatment program while incarcerated. The State argues that Peterson's appeal is moot because he was released from jail on December 24, 2011, and his case is now closed. Thus, the State contends that the requested relief of resentencing cannot affect Peterson's rights.

13 We exercised our discretion to treat the State's argument as a suggestion of mootness and invited a response from Peterson. See Utah R.App. P. 87(a) (providing that each party has a duty "to inform the court of any cireumstances which have transpired subsequent to the filing of the appeal or other proceeding which render moot one or more of the issues raised"). Peterson admits that he "is no longer incarcerated in relation to this case and the trial court ordered the case to be closed upon completion of his jail sentence." Nevertheless, Peterson states that he "wishes to exercise his right to appeal" and asks us to dismiss the suggestion of mootness. However, Peterson advances no argument that the appeal is not moot, and he does not have a right to an advisory opinion from this court.

14 " 'Generally, we will not decide a case that is moot.'" In re Adoption of L.O., 2012 UT 23, ¶ 8, 282 P.3d 977 (quoting In re C.D., 2010 UT 66, ¶ 11, 245 P.3d 724). An issue becomes moot while an appeal is pending if "'cireumstances change so that the controversy is eliminated, thereby rendering the relief requested impossible or of no legal effect," " Id. (quoting Richards v. Baum, 914 P.2d 719, 720 (Utah 1996)). In other words, "'[wlhere the issues that were before the trial court no longer exist, the appellate court will not review the case."" Id. (quoting Richards, 914 P.2d at 720).

15 Here, Peterson does not challenge his conviction, so the collateral consequences attendant to an unlawful conviction are not at issue. See State v. Martinez, 925 P.2d 176, 177 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (" '[A] criminal case is moot only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed ... .'" (alteration in original) (quoting Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968))). He instead limits his appeal to the legality of his sentence. The sentencing order states, "Case is closed upon completion of jail sentence," and Peterson admits that his jail sentence has been completed and his case closed. Thus, the relief he requests-resentencing-is "impossible or of no legal effect." See In re Adoption of L.O., 2012 UT 23, ¶ 8, 282 P.3d 977. Accordingly, the issues raised on appeal are moot. See State v. Davis, 721 P.2d 894, 895 (Utah 1986) (per curiam) ("However questionable the procedures employed in entering the formal order of sentence, the matter is now moot since defendant has served his sentence and has received a formal termination of probation.").

T 6 Dismissed.

17 WE CONCUR: GREGORY K. ORME and MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN, Judges. 
      
      . Because a subsequent amendment did not substantively change the relevant provision of the Utah Code, we cite the current version for the convenience of the reader. Compare Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-8(2)(a)(i) (LexisNexis Supp.2010), with id. (2012).
     
      
      . Nor does Peterson argue that, under the facts of this case, we can consider his appeal under an exception to the mootness doctrine. See, e.g., State v. Fife, 911 P.2d 989, 991 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (discussing the public policy exception to the mootness doctrine).
     