NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3228-16T3 DWAYNE MANN, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

Submitted May 9, 2018 – Decided July 11, 2018 Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Dwayne Mann, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Erica R. Heyer, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Dwayne Mann, who is presently incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison serving a life sentence subject to a thirty-two-year and six-month mandatory minimum term, appeals from a final agency decision of the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC). On March 13, 2017, the DOC found him guilty of prohibited act .701, unauthorized use of mail or telephone, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). The hearing officer imposed sanctions of 365 days loss of telephone privileges, 90 days loss of television and radio privileges, 60 days loss of commutation time, and 30 days loss of recreation privileges. The notice of appeal was filed on April 4, 2017. We denied Mann's subsequent motion seeking a stay of the sanctions pending appeal, and also denied the State's cross-motion for summary disposition.

Mann has completed service of the sanctions that were imposed.

We now dismiss this matter because the issues Mann raises are moot. See R. 2:8-2 ("The appellate court may at any time on its own motion . . . dismiss [an] appeal . . . .").

A moot decision has no practical effect on the existing controversy. See Redd v. Bowman, 223 N.J. 87, 104 (2015); N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.P., 408 N.J. Super. 252, 261 (App. Div. 2009). From our review of the record, it does not appear that this appeal, related solely to the imposition of already completed sanctions, would affect Mann's future status as an inmate. Given Mann's service of the sanctions, any decision we would make would have no effect on the controversy. We do not decide cases where our judgment would be meaningless.

2 A-3228-16T3 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as moot.

3 A-3228-16T3