P. v. Aguilera
Filed 8/27/13 P. v. Aguilera CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANDRES AGUILERA,
Defendant and Appellant.
F066559
(Super. Ct. No. 12M0020)
O P I N I O N
THE COURT
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County. John G.
O’Rourke, Judge. (Ret. Judge of the
Kings Sup. Ct. assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal.
Const.)
Paul
Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney
General, Sacramento, California,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Andres Aguilera was found
not competent to stand trial by the
Kings County Superior Court pursuant to Penal Code
suspended in 2012. He filed the instant
appeal in which he challenged the length of his commitment and the sufficiency
of the evidence to support a medication order.
During the pendency of this appeal, appellate counsel informed us that
appellant has since been found competent and
reinstated. He thereafter entered a
plea, admitting to a violation of section 4501.1 (prisoner assault on a nonprisoner),
and was sentenced to a prison term on June
28, 2013. Given the current
status of this case, we will dismiss this appeal as moot and affirm the
judgment.
DISCUSSION
As a general rule, an appellate
court only decides actual controversies.
It is not the function of the appellate court to render opinions upon
moot questions or abstract propositions, or declare principles or rules of law
which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it. A case becomes moot when a court ruling can
have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective
relief. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind
(1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.) Thus, an
action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be
maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts
or events. A reversal in such a case
would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be
dismissed. (People v. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486;
404.)
People v. Lindsey (1971) 20
Cal.App.3d 742 (Lindsey) supports a
mootness determination here. In that
case, the superior court determined after a hearing that a criminal defendant
was insane and ordered him committed to a state hospital. The defendant appealed the order. During the pendency of the appeal, the
defendant was certified as sane and criminal proceedings resumed. (Id.
at p. 743.) Lindsey dismissed defendant’s pending appeal of the original
commitment as moot because “the superintendent’s certification of sanity
terminates the commitment, leaving no prejudicial consequences which
could be ameliorated by a successful appeal.â€
(Id. at p. 744, italics
added.)
Lindsey clearly controls the resolution of appellant’s case. Here, as in Lindsey, the superior court found defendant was not
competent to stand trial, and defendant filed an appeal from the court’s
judgment on that issue. In the interim,
the court revisited the matter, found appellant was restored to competence, and
reinstated criminal proceedings. The
finding of competency renders this appeal moot.
Appellant opposes dismissal on two
grounds. First, he urges “there is
always the possibility that doubts will again be expressed as to competency,
leading to another commitment, or about his mental status, potentially
interfering with his probation.†Second,
he argues there is a “continuing stigma of once having been found not
competent.â€
Appellant’s first argument is
meritless given his subsequent plea and prison term sentence. As for his second argument, the court in
contention.
“The certificate of [sanity] attests that defendant is
no longer under … a [mental] disability.
The law imposes no disadvantageous collateral consequences upon
one whose trial has had to be postponed by reason of such a temporary
disability.… If defendant’s mental state
is considered in future proceedings, the issue will turn upon what that state
is found to be as of the relevant time, and not the fact that an order was made
under … section 1370 [in May 1971].
If any social opprobrium is thought to attach by reason of the
commitment, that is nothing which is likely to be relieved by an appellate
decision. The temporary commitment is
nothing from which defendant needs to ‘clear his name.’†(Lindsey,
supra, 20 Cal.App.3d at pp. 744-745, italics added.)
Finally, this court acknowledges it
may exercise its discretion to decide the issues raised in this appeal if they
involve important issues of public interest that are capable of repetition yet
review.
(See, e.g., People v. Cheek
(2001) 25 Cal.4th 894, 897-898; Conservatorship
of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 524, fn. 1; In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1634.) We decline to do so in this case, however,
because appellant has not identified any important issue of public
interest. (See, e.g.,
326, 329.) While appellant challenged
the length of his commitment and the sufficiency of the evidence for the court’s
order for the involuntary administration of
both orders have expired given the subsequent proceedings in this case.
Therefore,
we conclude subsequent events have rendered the present appeal moot. This case is not one where appellant may
suffer future collateral disabilities as a result of the challenged
ruling. The appropriate remedy is dismissal. (Lindsey,
supra, 20 Cal.App.3d at p. 744.)
DISPOSITION
Pursuant to
its July 11, 2013, order and no objection having been filed, this court takes
judicial notice of the postappeal proceedings in People v. Aguilera, Kings County Superior Court, case No. 12CM7310,
as described in appellate counsel’s July 3, 2013, letter brief. On this court’s own motion, the appeal is
dismissed as moot. The judgment is
affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before
Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Detjen, J.
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] All
further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
