Opinion
H043973
11-19-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MISAEL RAMIREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1511453)
Defendant Misael Ramirez pleaded no contest to one count of possessing cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and one count of transporting or selling cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). Defendant also admitted allegations that he possessed 57 grams or more of a substance containing at least five grams of cocaine or cocaine base (Pen. Code, § 1203.073, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for three years, with one year in county jail.
On appeal, defendant challenged a probation condition that provided that all of his electronic devices were subject to search and required him to provide passcodes to conduct those searches. Defendant contended that the probation condition was unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 and unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.
In an opinion filed March 28, 2018, we affirmed the order of probation. Defendant petitioned the California Supreme Court for review. On June 13, 2018, the California Supreme Court granted review, S248650, and later transferred the matter to this court with directions to vacate our decision and to reconsider the cause in light of In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113. We have vacated our prior decision by separate order.
In supplemental briefing, defendant's appointed counsel states that defendant is no longer on probation and that any issue concerning his probation condition is moot. " 'An action that involves only abstract or academic questions of law cannot be maintained. [Citation.] And an action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect.' " (People v. Herrera (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1198 (Herrera); see also Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 [if no effectual relief can be granted, an appeal will be dismissed as moot].)
Defendant's completion of probation in this case renders the appeal moot because a reversal "would be without practical effect." (Herrera, supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 1198.) Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal as moot. (See ibid.)
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
ELIA, ACTING P.J. /s/_________
MIHARA, J.