In re J.T.

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.T., Defendant and Appellant.

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

Date published: Apr 7, 2008

No. C055268 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2008)

Opinion

In re J.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.T., Defendant and Appellant. C055268 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento April 7, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. JV117040

SIMS, Acting P.J.

In January 2006, J.T., then a 16-year-old female, was declared emancipated for the purposes set forth in Family Code section 7050 et seq.¹

1 The minor’s date of birth is in November 1989.

In July 2006, J.T. was charged by petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) with driving without a license, a misdemeanor, and with violation of the basic speed law, an infraction. In September 2006 she was charged with driving under the influence in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivisions (a) and (b).

In February 2007, J.T. admitted one count of driving under the influence and the other count was dismissed. She was declared a ward of the court and placed under the supervision of the probation department on various conditions which included, inter alia, that until she is 18 years old she obey her parents and seek their permission or supervision before leaving home.

In March 2007, following the sustaining of the charges of driving without a license and violating the basic speed law, the court continued J.T. as a ward of the court and reimposed the same probationary conditions.

On appeal, J.T. contends the conditions of probation subjecting her to the directives of her parents were constitutionally vague and overbroad and that they conflicted with the prior order of the court emancipating her. However, since J.T. has turned 18 years old during the pendency of this appeal, the conditions of probation to which she objects, and which constitute the only issue raised on her appeal, no longer apply and the appeal is moot. (See People v. Herrera (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1198 [“[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”]; see also In re Robert A. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 174, 182.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

We concur: NICHOLSON, J., ROBIE, J.