P. v. Livingston
Defendant Meghan Victoria Livingston pleaded guilty to arson of an inhabited dwelling (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (b)) and sentenced to three years in state prison. After she violated parole, she was committed to the State Department of Mental Health for treatment as a mentally disturbed offender. (Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.) In December 2011, the court granted the district attorney’s petition to extend defendant’s commitment for another year based on the opinion of an appointed psychologist. Defendant appeals, contending the case should not have proceeded to trial after the prosecutor was advised her current treating psychiatrist had opined her mental disorder was in remission and she no longer posed a substantial risk to others. She also argues no substantial evidence supports the extended commitment order.
While this appeal was pending, defendant was discharged from the state hospital and we requested informal letter briefs “explaining why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot.†The Attorney General argues the case is moot because defendant “has already received the relief which she sought through reversal of the 2011 judgment . . . .†We agree. “‘“[A] case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief.â€â€™â€ (People v. Gregerson (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 306, 321.) Because defendant “has already received the relief [s]he seeks from us†(ibid.), the appeal is moot.
Comments on P. v. Livingston