Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
SIMONS, J.
Amy D. appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying her request to modify her probation to allow her to use medical marijuana. Appellant contends the juvenile court erred in concluding that the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (the Act) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5) does not apply to juveniles, and abused its discretion in not reducing her underlying offense to a misdemeanor. Respondent argues that appellant’s first contention is moot and appellant’s contention related to her underlying offense is not cognizable on this appeal. We affirm.
Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 was added by Proposition 215, a ballot initiative passed by the voters at the November 5, 1996 General Election. (People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 463.)
On June 21, 2007, appellant requested we take judicial notice of the “ ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section of the California Department of Health and Human Services website,” a May 14, 2004 press release by the Medical Board of the State of California, and a May 14, 2004 statement by the Medical Board of the State of California “setting forth practice standards for physicians who prescribe medical marijuana.” On June 26, 2007, we deferred ruling on this motion pending our consideration of the merits of the case. A reviewing court has discretion to take judicial notice of “[o]fficial acts of the . . . executive . . . department” of any state. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).) However, the documents appellant requested be noticed do not appear in the record, and appellant did not file and serve copies of these documents with the motion or explain why it is not practicable to do so, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.252, subdivision (a)(2). We deny the request for judicial notice.
Background
On January 27, 2006, the principal of Noyo High School informed a Fort Bragg police officer that appellant had been found in possession of two sandwich-sized plastic bags filled with marijuana, two smaller bags containing concentrated cannabis, rolling papers, and a list of weights and costs of different types of marijuana. The police officer determined appellant was also in possession of “pay/owe sheets” used for recording marijuana sales transactions. The four bags contained 26.2 grams of marijuana. On March 14, 2006, a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) was filed against appellant regarding the January incident, alleging possession of marijuana for sale, possession of concentrated cannabis, and possession of paraphernalia for unlawful use. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11359, 11357, subd. (a), 11364.)
On April 26, 2006, appellant threw a pair of scissors at her father, injuring him. On May 4, 2006, school authorities found two partially smoked marijuana cigarettes in appellant’s purse. The April and May incidents resulted in the filing of a subsequent petition against appellant on May 17, 2006, which alleged assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana at school (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (e)).
At her September 1, 2006 jurisdictional hearing, appellant admitted to possession of concentrated cannabis in exchange for dismissal of all other allegations.
On April 5, 2006, prior to the September 1 jurisdictional hearing, appellant’s mother took appellant to Dr. Jean Talleyrand at MediCann, Medical Marijuana Specialists, who recommended medical marijuana to relieve appellant’s asthma symptoms. The recommendation stated in relevant part: “This letter is to verify that I am the attending physician for [appellant] regarding the therapeutic value of medical marijuana for him/her. [¶] Additionally, this letter verifies that he/she has been diagnosed with a serious medical condition and that the medical use of marijuana is appropriate for that serious medical condition.” Appellant’s mother and father have medical marijuana cards obtained under the Act. Appellant’s mother is a caregiver and her father operates a marijuana dispensary.
Before the October 20, 2006 disposition hearing, the probation department filed a report relating the circumstances behind the March 14 petition and the May 17 subsequent petition. In addition, the report noted that before the incidents charged in the two petitions, appellant had been expelled from the local high school for twice possessing and using marijuana on campus. The probation report specifically recommended against the court permitting appellant to use marijuana for medical purposes. It noted that Amy’s father supported appellant’s use of marijuana, not because of the health issues involved, but because he believed she had the political “right” to use it. “Additionally, Amy admitted although she feels the use of marijuana helps her [a]sthma, she also uses marijuana for recreational purposes.” Further, the report stated, “It is clear that Amy’s medical use is not closely monitored by her parents or a physician and this department has concerns in allowing a 17 year old the responsibility of self-medicating with marijuana.” Finally, the report concluded that appellant’s “marijuana use, be it medical or recreational, has interfered with her remaining law abiding.”
At her October 20, 2006 disposition hearing, appellant requested that her probation conditions include an exception for use of medical marijuana. The court denied appellant’s request, stating that it had considered “all the factors in the case . . . and applying the court’s own logic and reasoning to the circumstances here in good conscience, I just cannot rationalize a [Proposition] 215 exception in this case. I’m sorry. I just cannot rationalize that.” The court declared appellant a ward of the juvenile court and ordered her placed on probation with standard conditions to “obey all laws” and not “possess or consume any alcohol, marijuana, narcotics, or illegal drugs at any time.” The court reserved to the parties the right to petition for modification of these probation conditions by filing “declarations that might focus further on the medical aspect of [Proposition] 215.” The court also denied appellant’s request that the court reduce the “wobbler” offense (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (b)) of possession of concentrated cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)) from a felony to a misdemeanor.
In addition to the probation report, the court had before it a court-ordered psychological evaluation of appellant, performed by Dr. Kevin Kelly, that recommended that appellant not be permitted to use medical marijuana while on probation.
On January 16, 2007, a probation violation petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777, subd. (b)) was filed against appellant, alleging that she had been suspended from school, refused school officials’ request to search her, and tested positive for marijuana in violation of her probation conditions. On February 2, 2007, appellant admitted to testing positive for marijuana, and the remaining allegations were dismissed. The court ordered appellant to remain on probation and perform 30 additional hours of community service.
Sometime thereafter, appellant requested a modification of her probation conditions to allow use of marijuana for medical purposes; and, on March 16, 2007, the court held a hearing on appellant’s request. Appellant submitted a letter by Dr. William Courtney that summarized “the medical rationale for [appellant’s] continued use of cannabis as a bronchodilator in providing relief from the respiratory distress associated with her Asthma,” and concluded, “[i]t is my sincere hope that you will continue to allow Amy to use clinical cannabis for the relief of the respiratory distress secondary to her long-standing asthma.” Appellant also presented the court with a medical marijuana identification card issued to her by the Mendocino County Public Health Department.
The court admitted the letter into evidence, subject to the prosecutor’s relevancy and foundation objections that appellant was not treated by Dr. Courtney.
After hearing argument from both parties, the court denied appellant’s request based on its conclusion that the Act did not apply to juveniles. The court stated, “my concern is not the medical impact, it’s the fact that Amy is a minor. And I’m just not sure as to the application of [Proposition] 215 to the juvenile court. That would be my question to both counsel. The medical implication -- you can’t argue against Dr. Courtney’s recommendation.” The court then offered both counsel an opportunity to brief whether the Act applied in juvenile matters, stating “[W]e may be cutting new law for the State of California in this particular matter. That’s something that I’m simply not prepared to make a knee-jerk ruling on today.” Both counsel declined the opportunity to brief the issue, and the trial court denied the motion to modify. Appellant filed a timely appeal from the court’s ruling on her request for modification of probation conditions.
Discussion
Mootness
Respondent contends that the appeal, which presents the question whether the Act applies to juveniles, is moot because appellant’s 18th birthday occurred in August 2007. Appellant acknowledges that she is no longer a minor and, in a brief filed before her birthday, states that after her birthday she may apply again for modification of her probation conditions to allow medical marijuana use. However, appellant argues that her appeal should be heard, as it presents a matter of continuing public concern.
“It is settled that ‘[a]n action that involves only abstract or academic questions of law cannot be maintained. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Moreover ‘ “[A]n 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, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486 .) However, “if a pending case poses an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur, the court may exercise an inherent discretion to resolve that issue even though an event occurring during its pendency would normally render the matter moot.” (In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23.) “We should, of course, avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law. [Citations.] But we should not avoid the resolution of important and well litigated controversies arising from situations which are ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 23, fn. 14.)
Appellant has now turned 18, and the question of whether the Act applies to juveniles, and specifically to juvenile probationers, is now moot as to her. In their briefing, neither side suggests that an adult on probation lacks the right to seek modification of that probation to permit the medical use of marijuana and neither party suggests the trial court would lack discretion to make such an order. Appellant makes two arguments in support of our deciding this issue. First, she argues the matter is not moot because “appellant’s juvenile record will reflect the existing probation violations and could prejudice appellant in any future criminal proceedings and be a cloud over her record.” California recognizes the rule that a criminal defendant may appeal his or her conviction even after serving the entire sentence “ ‘for the purpose of clearing his [or her] name.’ ” (See People v. DeLong, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 488.) However, the only ruling appealed from is the March 16, 2007 order denying modification of appellant’s probation, and appellant never explains how this appeal could impact the completely separate orders issued by the juvenile court establishing jurisdiction in 2006, placing her on probation in 2006, and finding a violation of that probation in 2007. Appellant’s juvenile record may create a “cloud” over her future, but no step we take here will remove it.
Next, appellant contends that even if the issue is moot as to her, “the question as posed by the juvenile court, does [the Act] apply to minors, is a matter of continuing public concern beyond the present litigation and is an issue that is quite capable of repetition in the future, even if it somehow evades review in the present.” Assuming that the issue is one of continuing public concern, there is no basis for believing that it will evade future review. At the time probation was initially imposed on appellant, the trial court exercised its discretion and turned down her request to use marijuana for medical purposes while on probation. Several months later, shortly before her 18th birthday, appellant asked for a modification of probation to the same effect and appealed the court’s denial. There seems little reason to doubt that other, somewhat younger minors will make similar requests of the juvenile court in the future and, if those requests are denied, will be able to effectively appeal the result.
Reduction of Wobbler Offense
Finally, appellant contends the court abused its discretion in failing to reduce her wobbler offense for possession of concentrated cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)) from a felony to a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (b)). Respondent asserts that this contention is not cognizable on appeal, as the instant appeal is taken from the court’s ruling on appellant’s request to modify probation conditions, not from the court’s earlier ruling on the underlying offense. Appellant does not counter respondent’s argument.
At appellant’s October 20, 2006 disposition hearing, the court denied appellant’s request that the court reduce the offense of possession of concentrated cannabis from a felony to a misdemeanor. Appellant could have filed an appeal from that order within 60 days, but did not do so. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.585, subds. (a) & (f).) Nearly five months later, at the March 16, 2007 probation modification hearing, the court denied appellant’s request for modification of her probation conditions. On March 20, 2007, appellant filed a notice of appeal “from the court ruling of March 16, 2007, rendered in the Superior Court, County of Mendocino.” On this appeal, appellant cannot belatedly raise challenges to the court’s October 20, 2006 ruling on her underlying offense. (See People v. Preyer (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 568, 576.)
Disposition
The appeal from the juvenile court’s order denying appellant’s request for modification of her probation conditions is dismissed as moot. The court’s order denying appellant’s request to reduce her felony offense to a misdemeanor is affirmed.
We concur. JONES, P. J. NEEDHAM, J.