Opinion
F074564
11-09-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B.H., Defendant and Appellant.
Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Paul E. O'Connor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 16CRAD683391)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alan M. Simpson, Judge. Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Paul E. O'Connor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J. --------
-ooOoo-
Appellant B.H., a mentally disordered sexual offender, appeals from an order compelling him to submit to involuntary treatment with psychotropic medication. He contends the trial court erred in admitting inadmissible hearsay under People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665. Because the order has expired on its own terms, we conclude the appeal is moot.
B.H. was committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) at Coalinga.
On August 25, 2016, DSH filed a petition to compel B.H. to submit to involuntary treatment with psychotropic medication for one year pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 9, section 4210.
On October 17, 2016, the superior court conducted a hearing at which Dr. Ravi Chand, a psychiatrist, testified for DSH as an expert in the field of psychiatry. At the conclusion of the hearing the same day, the court granted the petition to compel involuntary medication for a period not to exceed one year from the date of the order.
On October 20, 2016, B.H. filed a notice of appeal, followed by an amended notice of appeal on November 9, 2016.
As a general rule, appellate review is limited to actual controversies; a case that involves " 'only abstract or academic questions of law cannot be maintained.' " (People v. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486, fns. omitted.) " ' "[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." ' " (Ibid.) In other words, "[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." (Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479 (Cucamongans).) Here, since the order appealed from has already expired on its own terms, resolving the issue presented would not confer any effective relief to the parties.
There are three exceptions to the rule against adjudicating moot claims. A reviewing court may decide an appeal on the merits: "(1) when the case presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur [citation]; (2) when there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties [citation]; and (3) when a material question remains for the court's determination." (Cucamongans, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp. 479-480.) We are aware of our discretionary authority, and are not compelled to exercise it under the circumstances of this case.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.