Opinion
H041621
11-25-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EMILIO SOLORZANO ROCHA, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. C1477177)
Defendant Emilio Solorzano Rocha pleaded no contest to possession of matter depicting a person under age 18 engaging in or simulating sexual conduct (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a)) after a search of defendant's home revealed that he possessed child pornography on his computer and a thumb drive. Defendant was placed on probation for three years.
On appeal, defendant challenged several probation conditions, including an electronic devices search condition. In an opinion filed September 14, 2017, we affirmed the order of probation.
Defendant petitioned the California Supreme Court for review. On November 21, 2017, the California Supreme Court granted review, S244884, 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.
The record reflects that in 2014, defendant was placed on probation for three years. In supplemental briefing, appointed counsel states that defendant "is no longer on probation" and that "the appeal is now moot." Attorney General agrees that the "appeal 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.