Filed 6/18/26 P. v. Russell CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A173051
v.
DEREK RUSSELL, (Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. 012403445)
Defendant and Appellant.
I. MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Defendant Derek Russell appeals from a trial court order authorizing
his involuntary medication after he was found incompetent to stand trial.
(Pen. Code, § 1370, subd. (a)(2)(B).)2 The parties agree the appeal is moot
because Russell has since been restored to competency. Still, Russell asks us
to exercise our discretion to reach the merits of his claims that issuing the
order without an evidentiary hearing denied him due process and equal
protection, and a recent decision rejecting the same arguments was wrongly
1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud.
Admin., § 8.1.) We provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is
unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and
its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.)
2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
decided. We decline to exercise our discretion to consider these moot claims
and therefore dismiss Russell’s appeal.
Russell was charged in case no. 01-24-03445 with three counts of petty
theft (§§ 484, subd. (a), 490.2), two counts each of grand theft of personal
property (§ 487, subd. (a)) and receiving stolen property valued at over $950
(§ 496, subd. (a)), one count of vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)), and one count of
second degree burglary (§ 459). He was also charged in no. 01-24-01309 with
one count of misdemeanor shoplifting (§ 459.5) and in no. 01-25-00588 with
another count of petty theft (§§ 484, subd. (a), 490.2).
The trial court declared a doubt concerning Russell’s competency to
stand trial and appointed a doctor to evaluate him. The doctor concluded
that Russell was not competent and that his treating psychiatrist should be
authorized to administer medications without Russell’s consent. As to
competency, Russell submitted on the doctor’s report without objection. The
court determined Russell was not competent and deferred findings
concerning involuntary medication to a subsequent commitment hearing.
Russell filed a request that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing
before issuing an involuntary medication order, which the court denied.
While he did not stipulate to accept the initial doctor’s report, Russell
declined to present any specific argument about it. Considering that report
and another prepared by a doctor with the county’s Conditional Release
Program, the court ordered Russell committed to the State Department of
State Hospitals for two years. The court entered an involuntary medication
order under section 1370, subdivision (a)(2)(B).
This appeal followed. But within a few months, the trial court found
Russell’s competency had been restored and reinstated his criminal
proceedings. In June 2025, Russell pleaded no contest to the charges in nos.
2
01-24-01309 and 01-24-00588 and to one count of grand theft and two counts
of receiving stolen property in no. 01-24-03445; the remaining charges
against him were dismissed. The trial court sentenced Russell to two years of
probation.
Russell concedes that his appeal was thus rendered moot but urges us
to reach its merits because the entry of involuntary medication orders
without an evidentiary hearing “is a matter of general public interest or
importance” likely to evade review, and it presents a controversy likely to
recur between the parties. While we have discretion to consider otherwise
moot appeals in these circumstances (California Charter Schools Assn. v. Los
Angeles Unified School Dist. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1221, 1233–1234, citing Bullis
Charter School v. Los Altos School Dist. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1033–
1035), we decline to do so here.
Although we agree that Russell raises serious issues affecting the
public interest, the issues have not evaded review: as Russell recognizes,
Division Two of this court reached and rejected essentially identical claims
that “the trial court violated . . . due process and equal protection when it
issued [an] involuntary medication order without first affording [the
defendant] an evidentiary hearing.” (People v. Lewis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th
1078, 1086, review den. Sept. 3, 2025, S291967.) We acknowledge that a
different court might decide differently, but Russell’s argument here—which
is neither novel nor thorough—does not persuade us to do so. (See People v.
Pipkin (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1146, 1152–1154 [declining to reach moot
question another case had recently addressed]). And it would be wholly
speculative to conclude that Russell himself is likely to reoffend and be found
incompetent to stand trial and subject to an involuntary medication order
under materially the same circumstances that were present in this case. (See
3
In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 278 [speculative future harm is insufficient
to avoid mootness].)
In general, it is our “duty ‘ “to decide actual controversies by a
judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot
questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law
which cannot affect the matter” ’ ” before us. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at
p. 276.) We honor that principle here and decline to exercise our discretion to
consider this appeal.
II. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
4
_________________________
SMILEY, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
BANKE, Acting P. J.
_________________________
LANGHORNE WILSON, J.
People v. Russell / A173051
5
