P. v. Rangel

P. v. Rangel

Filed 9/16/08 P. v. Rangel CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RENATO RANGEL, Defendant and Appellant.

E042648 (Super.Ct.No. RIF096006) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. James A. Edwards, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.) Dismissed.

Chris Truax, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Gil Gonzalez and Peter Quon, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury found defendant is a mentally disordered offender. (Pen. Code, 2970.)^[1] The court ordered that defendant be committed to the Department of Mental Healths care for a treatment period of one year. Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request to be treated on an outpatient basis. ( 2972, subd. (d).) We dismiss the appeal because defendants contention is moot.

FACTS

On February 28, 2007, the trial court ordered that defendant be placed in the custody of the Department of Mental Health for a treatment period that was set to expire on February 13, 2008.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request to be treated on an outpatient basis. We dismiss the appeal because defendants contention is moot.

An appeal from a commitment order for a mentally disordered offender is moot once the commitment period has expired. (People v. Merfield (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1074-1075.) Typically, reviewing courts will review such orders, despite the fact that they have been rendered moot, if (1) the reviewing courts decision may affect the lower courts right to continue jurisdiction over defendants subsequent commitment hearings; or (2) the case raises important issues that are capable of repetition but likely to evade review due to the time constraints of such orders. (People v. Fernandez (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 117, 134-135; see also In re Lemanuel C. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 33, 38, fn. 4.)

Defendants commitment order expired over seven months ago.

A resolution of defendants contention would have no effect on the trial courts right to continue jurisdiction over subsequent commitment petitions, because defendants argument relates solely to whether he is treated on an inpatient or outpatient basis.

Additionally, defendants case does not raise an important issue that is capable of repetition but likely to evade review. Defendant argues that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in denying his request that he be treated as an outpatient, because (1) the court did not understand that it had the authority to make such an order; and (2) the court delegated its authority to the Department of Mental Health. We conclude that this issue is peculiar to this case, as it involves a question of whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion. Accordingly, this is not an issue that is capable of repetition but likely to evade review.

Moreover, we note that on November 14, 2007, the trial court granted defendants motion to be treated on an outpatient basis.^[2]

In sum, we conclude that defendants contention is moot.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

/s/ McKinster

J.

We concur:

/s/ Hollenhorst

Acting P.J.

/s/ Gaut

J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1]All further references to code sections are to the Penal Code.

^[2]On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the November 14, 2007, minute order in defendants case No. PEF005511. (Evid. Code, 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)