Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ07008721.
Siggins, J.
B.G. appeals from an order of the juvenile court placing him in county jail. Because the juvenile court granted appellant’s motion for reconsideration, remanded him to juvenile hall and subsequently released appellant into his own custody, dismissed wardship and terminated his probation, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As charged in an amended petition, appellant, after negotiating a plea bargain, admitted to misdemeanor burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459. The juvenile court adjudged appellant a ward of the court, with an order that he reside with his mother.
The juvenile court ordered a change of placement to Rite of Passage, an out-of-county facility, after the court found that appellant had committed a felony violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1), assault with a sharp instrument by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.
Shortly after his 18th birthday, Rite of Passage terminated appellant for his failure to comply with its program’s rules. The probation department recommended, in light of appellant’s age (18 years, three months), and the exhaustion of juvenile placement services, that he be placed in the DEUCE program at Santa Rita County Jail. On May 12, 2009, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 208.5, the court ordered appellant placed in the program. On June 15, 2009, appellant filed this timely notice of appeal.
DEUCE is an acronym that stands for: Deciding, Education, Understanding, Counseling and Evaluation.
On July 2, 2009, while this appeal was pending, the juvenile court granted appellant’s motion for reconsideration and remanded him to juvenile hall. Subsequently, the juvenile court ordered appellant released into his own custody, dismissed wardship and terminated his probation.
DISCUSSION
I. The Appeal Is Moot and Discretionary Review Is Not Warranted
Although this appeal is technically moot, appellant urges this court to exercise its discretion and issue a decision on the merits. An appeal will be dismissed as moot when, through no fault of respondent, the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant any effective relief. (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404.)
Appellate courts have discretion to decide a case that, although moot, poses an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur. (Edelstein v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 29 Cal.4th 164, 172.) This discretion is particularly likely to be exercised when the issue is “ ‘presented in the context of a controversy so short-lived as to evade normal appellate review.’ ” (Chantiles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowners Assn. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 914, 921.)
Here, appellant contends that the “Alameda County Juvenile Court has... a practice of sending 18-year-olds to the county jail.” In support of his position, appellant cites to the probation department’s reports on September 30, 2008, and April 28, 2009, recommending his participation in the DEUCE substance abuse program at Santa Rita. Appellant also points to a court officer’s DEUCE recommendation at the May 12, 2009, disposition hearing as evidence demonstrating this case involves “ ‘ “an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur.” ’ ” (Edelstein v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 172.)
It is clear that juvenile courts may not commit 18-year-old wards to county jail. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 202, subd. (e).) But it is evident from the court’s grant of appellant’s motion for reconsideration and order remanding him to juvenile hall that there is not an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur in the Alameda County Juvenile Court. At this time, we elect not to use our discretionary review but we emphasize the well-established rule that juvenile courts may not commit an 18-year-old ward to county jail. (In re Ramon M. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 665, 674; In re Jose H. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1099-1100; In re Kenny A. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1, 7-9; In re Kirk G. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 538, 539-540; In re Maria A. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 901, 903-904.) The juvenile court in this case apparently recognized its error, granted appellant’s motion for reconsideration, and remanded him to juvenile hall. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: McGuiness, P.J., Jenkins, J.