Opinion
A153952
11-15-2019
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR948996)
Appellant Obie was sentenced to a three-year term in county jail, with the final 90 days to be served on mandatory supervision during which he must submit any electronic communication devices under his control to search and seizure at any time. Obie challenged the condition, and we upheld it in a January 2019 opinion. Our Supreme Court granted Obie's petition for review and later transferred this case to this court with directions to vacate its decision and reconsider the cause in light of In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d).)
We issued an order for supplemental briefing in which we directed the parties to discuss whether the validity of the challenged condition is moot, as well as the applicability of In re Ricardo P. In response to that order, Obie's counsel advised this court that, according to the Lake County Probation Department, Obie is out of custody and no longer under mandatory supervision. Obie's counsel did not otherwise address the issue of mootness, but argued that the condition should be stricken under In re Ricardo P. The Attorney General argues that because Obie is no longer subject to mandatory supervision, the appeal is moot and should be dismissed. We agree. A ruling on the validity of the challenged condition would have no practical effect and would not provide Obie with any effective relief. (See People v. Pipkin (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1146, 1149-1150 [discussing mootness].) Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
/s/_________
Miller, J. We concur: /s/_________
Kline, P.J. /s/_________
Stewart, J.