P. v. Torregroza

















Filed 7/6/12 P.
v. Torregroza CA6

>

>

>

>

>

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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



SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERICK R. TORREGROZA, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

H036542 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. C1093209 & C1092700)

Defendant Erick
R. Torregroza, Jr., was charged by two separate complaints with one felony
(vandalism) and four misdemeanors. Based
upon the opinion of a psychologist,
the court determined that defendant was incompetent to stand trial and ordered
him committed to a state hospital for a term of no more than three years.

Defendant
challenges the commitment order on the ground that the court failed to appoint
a second expert to evaluate his competence.
Subsequent to the commitment order and the filing of the href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">notice of appeal, defendant was restored
to competency, the court reinstated criminal
proceedings, defendant entered no contest pleas, and the court granted
three-years’ probation. The Attorney
General contends that the appeal is moot.
We agree and will dismiss the appeal.

>

FACTShref="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"
title="">[1]

Defendant was alleged to have committed a
battery and to have threatened bodily injury or death upon the mother of his
child on November 10, 2010.
It was further alleged that 10 days later, defendant again “threatened
his pregnant girlfriend with harm, pushed her to the floor, and grabbed her by
the hair while holding a knife to her throat.
On the same day, he allegedly damaged the car in which she was attempting
to escape from him . . .”

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Pre-Appeal
Proceedings

Defendant
was charged (case no. C1092700) by misdemeanor complaint filed November 22,
2010, with battery on the mother of his child in violation of Penal Code
sections 242 and 243, subdivision (e) (count 1),href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">>[2]
and making threats to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury
(§ 422; count 2). He was also
charged (case no. C1093209) by felony complaint filed November 24, 2010, with vandalism causing damage of $400 or more, a felony
(§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1); count 1), misdemeanor battery on the mother of
his child (§§ 242-243, subd. (e); count 2), and exhibiting a deadly weapon
other than a firearm, a misdemeanor (§ 417, subd. (a)(1); count 3).

At
a December 2010 hearing, the court suspended href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">criminal proceedings in both cases
pending a determination of defendant’s competence to stand trial. Based upon the report of a psychologist, and
after counsel submitted the matter on the report, the court thereafter found
defendant not competent to stand trial in both cases. On January 26, 2011, it issued an order
committing defendant to the State Department of Mental Health for placement in
a locked psychiatric facility for care and treatment for the incompetent under
section 1370, subdivision (a)(2), with a maximum term of three years. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal
from the commitment order, which is appealable under Code of Civil Procedure
section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1). (People
v. Fields (1965) 62 Cal.2d 538, 542.)

II. Post-Appeal
Proceedingshref="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"
title="">[3]

In
April 2011, the medical director of Atascadero State Hospital certified that
defendant was competent to stand trial.
The same month, the court reinstated criminal proceedings against
defendant in both cases. On May 4, 2011,
defendant entered no contest pleas to the charges alleged in both cases. On June 24, 2011, in case number C1092700 (relative
to the two misdemeanor offenses to which defendant pleaded no contest), the
court placed defendant on three-years’ formal probation on condition that he
serve six months in jail. On the same
day in case number C1093209 (relative to the one felony and two misdemeanor
offenses to which defendant pleaded no contest), the court placed defendant on
three-years’ formal probation on condition that he serve six months in
jail. The court ordered the jail
sentence in case number C1093209 to run concurrently with the sentence in case
number C1092700 and ordered the jail terms in both cases deemed served.

DISCUSSION

I. The
Commitment Order

A. >Contentions

Defendant
contends that the court erred in declaring him incompetent to stand trial. He argues that before making such an order,
the court should have appointed a second psychiatrist or licensed psychologist
to evaluate defendant’s competence pursuant to section 1369, subdivision (b).href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4] Defendant asserts that the court was
compelled to appoint a second professional because it had been informed that
defendant was not seeking a finding of mental incompetence.href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="">>[5]

The Attorney General does not
respond to the merits of this argument.
Instead, she asserts that the procedural events occurring after the
commitment order have rendered the appeal moot.href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="">>[6]

We will first address the Attorney
General’s contention, since the question of whether a case is moot is a
threshold matter that “is central to our jurisdiction. [Citations.]”
(Mercury Interactive Corp. v.
Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 75.)

B. Mootness

“ ‘It is well settled that an
appellate court will decide only actual controversies. Consistent therewith, it has been said that
an action which originally was based upon a justiciable controversy cannot be
maintained on appeal if the questions raised therein have become moot by
subsequent acts or events.’ ” (>Giles v. Horn (2002)
100 Cal.App.4th 206, 226-227.) “
‘It necessarily follows that when, pending an appeal from the judgment of a
lower court, and without any fault of the [respondent], an event occurs which
renders it impossible for this court, if it should decide the case in favor of
[appellant], to grant him any effectual relief whatever, the court will not
proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal.’ [Citations.]”
(Consolidated Vultee Air. Corp. v.
United Automobile (1946) 27 Cal.2d 859, 863; see also Eye Dog Foundation v. State Bd. of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967)
67 Cal.2d 536, 541.)

The case of People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742 (Lindsey) is directly on point.
There, the defendant appealed an order determining he was insane and
unable to stand trial and committed him to a state hospital. (Id.
at p. 743.) While the appeal was
pending, the state hospital’s superintendent certified the defendant as sane
and the criminal proceedings resumed. (>Ibid.)
The appellate court concluded that the appeal was moot and ordered it
dismissed, concluding that “the superintendent’s certification of sanity
terminates the commitment, leaving no prejudicial consequences which could be
ameliorated by a successful appeal.” (>Id. at p. 744.)

Lindsey clearly controls. Here, as in Lindsey, the superior court found defendant was not competent to
stand trial, and defendant appealed the commitment order. While the appeal was pending, defendant was
restored to competency, the criminal proceedings resumed, defendant ultimately
pleaded no contest to the charges in both cases, and he received grants of
probation. These circumstances have thus
rendered the instant appeal challenging the superseded commitment order moot.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is
dismissed.









Duffy, J.href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title="">*







WE CONCUR:









Rushing, P.J.









Premo, J.