Filed 11/4/26 P. v. Mitchell CA2/3
Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, B316173
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. Nos. MA077145, MA081739)
v.
JAMES RAY MITCHELL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Robert G. Chu, Judge. Dismissed.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Nima Razfar, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
James Ray Mitchell entered into a negotiated plea that
included an upper term. He appealed, contending he was entitled
to resentencing based on the passage of Senate Bill No. 567
(2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 567). That law limits
trial courts’ sentencing discretion, especially with respect to
upper terms. In a prior decision of this division, we rejected
Mitchell’s contention, finding Senate Bill No. 567 inapplicable to
a negotiated plea to an upper term sentence.
The California Supreme Court thereafter found otherwise
in People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729 (Mitchell).1 The court
has therefore transferred the matter to us with the direction to
vacate Mitchell’s sentence and reconsider it in light of Mitchell.
However, Mitchell has since completed his sentence and is out of
custody and not on parole. His appeals are therefore moot and,
as such, we dismiss them.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Trial Court Proceedings
In September 2019, the People charged Mitchell with the
sale, offer to sell, or transportation of a controlled substance
(methamphetamine). The People alleged Mitchell had a prior
strike for kidnapping. (Case No. MA077145.) On October 2,
2019, Mitchell entered into a plea deal with the prosecution,
pleading no contest to the charge and admitting the prior strike
1 Mitchell, supra, 19 Cal.5th 729, is a different case involving
a different defendant, but sharing the surname Mitchell.
2
for drug court. Under the deal, if Mitchell successfully completed
his program, the court would strike the strike. If he did not, the
plea and admission would stand and the court could sentence
Mitchell to up to eight years in prison.
In accordance with the plea agreement, on December 5,
2019, the court ordered Mitchell to enroll in an intensive
outpatient program, to remain in the program, and to report to
court in person if he left the program for any reason. The court
set a progress report for January 30, 2020. Mitchell did not
appear in court that day and had not reported to court since
being released to the program. Accordingly, the trial court issued
a no-bail bench warrant.
About 18 months later, on July 25, 2021, Mitchell was
arrested after he evaded law enforcement officers while recklessly
driving a motorcycle. During the pursuit, Mitchell discarded a
baggie of methamphetamine.
The People charged Mitchell with felony evading and
several misdemeanors, including driving under the influence of
alcohol and a drug. (Case No. MA081739.) Based on that arrest
and new filing, the court in Mitchell’s drug case recalled and
quashed the bench warrant.
On October 21, 2021, Mitchell entered into an agreement
with the People to resolve both matters. Mitchell pled no contest
to felony evading and misdemeanor driving under the influence.
He again admitted his strike prior. In accordance with the
parties’ agreement, the court sentenced Mitchell to six years in
state prison for the evading (the upper term doubled because of
the strike), as well as six months on the misdemeanor, to be
served concurrently with the felony. On the drug case, the court
sentenced Mitchell to six years in state prison (the midterm of
3
three years doubled because of the strike), to be served
concurrently with the evading case.
Proceedings in This Court
Mitchell filed notices of appeal in both cases. He contended
we should remand both cases for resentencing in light of Senate
Bill No. 567 and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)
(Assembly Bill No. 124). Senate Bill No. 567 amended Penal
Code section 1170, subdivision (b), to require imposition of the
middle term except where there are circumstances in aggravation
of the crime and the defendant either has stipulated to the facts
underlying those circumstances or the trier of fact has found
them true beyond a reasonable doubt.2 Assembly Bill No. 124
amended section 1170, subdivision (b)(6), to require imposition of
the low term if any of the following “was a contributing factor in
the commission of the offense”: the defendant “has experienced
psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not
limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence”; the
defendant was a youth (defined as anyone under the age of 26)
when he or she committed the offense; or the defendant had been
the “victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking.”
This division held that Mitchell was not entitled to
resentencing in his drug case because he had been sentenced to
the midterm and nothing in the record showed he was entitled to
relief under Assembly Bill No. 124. We also held that he was not
entitled to resentencing in his felony evading case because his
upper term sentence was imposed in accordance with a plea
agreement.
2 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal
Code.
4
The California Supreme Court granted Mitchell’s petition
for review. The court then issued Mitchell, supra, 19 Cal.5th 729,
and transferred this case to us with the direction to vacate our
decision and reconsider it in light of Mitchell.
DISCUSSION
In supplemental briefing, appellant’s counsel informed us
that Mitchell completed his sentence and is not in custody or on
parole. He argues that the appeals are not moot and remand for
resentencing remains proper. We disagree.
Appellate courts decide actual controversies. (People v.
Rish (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1380.) We do not render
opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or declare
principles or rules of law having no effect. (Ibid.) An issue or
case is moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or
provide effective relief. (Ibid.) When an event occurs that
renders it impossible to grant effective relief, the appeal should
be dismissed as moot. (People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640,
645.) Completion of a sentence is such an event. (Ibid.) Where a
defendant has completed a sentence and is not on parole, the
claim of error as to that sentence is moot “because a reviewing
court’s resolution of the issues could offer no relief regarding the
time he spent in custody or the parole term that has already
terminated.” (Ibid.) A defendant must demonstrate “sufficiently
concrete consequences to avoid” a mootness finding. (Id. at
p. 646, fn. 2.)
Although Mitchell has completed his sentence, he argues
that his appeals are not moot because “future statutes could
make punishable prior sentences.” Mitchell has not, however,
provided relevant authority to support this claim or
demonstrated how his completed sentence will result in a
5
collateral consequence that could prevent his appeals from being
moot. Even if we remanded this matter and the trial court
resentenced Mitchell to a middle term, “resolution of the issues
could offer no relief regarding the time he spent in custody.”
(People v. DeLeon, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 645.) Resentencing to a
middle term would not change the fact of Mitchell’s convictions,
clear his record, or remove the stigma of criminality. (Compare
People v. Delong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 492.)
We therefore decline Mitchell’s invitation to consider the
merits of the appeals and dismiss them.
6
DISPOSITION
The appeals are dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS
ADAMS, P. J.
We concur:
HANASONO, J.
PÁNUCO, J.
7