Opinion
A164694
03-29-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RENE SANTIAGO, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR7452251
BROWN, ACTING P.J.
The trial court summarily revoked defendant Rene Santiago's probation and issued an arrest warrant based on the Probation Department's report alleging that he had left his drug treatment program without authorization and failed to report as ordered. After defendant admitted the violation, the court reinstated defendant's probation and extended the probationary period by 171 days to account for defendant's time "in warrant status." Defendant appeals the extension. After defendant filed this appeal, the trial court terminated his probation as unsuccessful and sentenced him to county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h). Because we cannot grant defendant effective relief, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
We requested and received supplemental briefing from the parties regarding mootness.
BACKGROUND
Defendant pled no contest to violating Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years of formal probation with various conditions, including that he serve one year in county jail and complete a residential treatment program. The trial court summarily revoked defendant's probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.2 and issued a bench warrant for his arrest after he abandoned his treatment program without permission. Defendant was returned to custody, and admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation. The trial court reinstated defendant's probation on the same conditions. At the prosecutor's request and over the defense's objection, the court extended the probation termination date to account for defendant's time "in warrant status for 171 days." Defendant timely appealed, arguing that the court erred in extending his probation.
All further statutory references are to the California Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
DISCUSSION
"As a general rule, '" 'the duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.'"' [Citation.] Thus, 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."' [Citations.] Put another way,' "[a]n appeal should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief." '" (People v. Pipkin (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1146, 1149-1150.)
We will not resolve defendant's appeal because the trial court terminated his probation and sentenced him to county jail pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h), rendering this appeal moot. Defendant admits his appeal is moot but nonetheless asks us to resolve his case on the merits because the issue is one "capable of repetition, yet evading review." (Thompson v. Department of Corrections (2001) 25 Cal.4th 117, 122.) We decline to do so. Earlier this year, our colleagues in Division Two addressed precisely this issue in People v. Ornelas, holding that the trial court properly extended the defendant's probation termination date to account for the time he was in warrant status. (People v. Ornelas (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1305, 1308, 1309 [2023 Cal.App. LEXIS 63, *1, *3].) As in Ornelas, defendant violated the terms of his probation, the trial court summarily revoked his probation, and, when defendant was returned to custody and admitted the violation, the trial court properly reinstated his probation with an extended termination date to account for his time in warrant status. As Ornelas is directly on point, there is no reason for us to address the merits of this appeal notwithstanding its obvious mootness.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
WE CONCUR: STREETER, J., GOLDMAN, J.