Opinion
A149654
06-28-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C. F., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 26-68185)
This is an appeal from an involuntary medication order that was entered on August 26, 2016, and by its terms expired on August 25, 2017. By order dated June 11, 2018, we asked the parties to submit, on or before June 18, 2018, letter briefs addressing whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot. The Attorney General timely responded, contending that the appeal is now moot, and representing that the Department did not seek to renew the order because by the time it expired, appellant had become (and remains) compliant with his medication regime.
In a late-filed letter brief, appellant acknowledges that the involuntary medication order has expired, but contends that the appeal nevertheless is not moot because the order could have continuing collateral consequences. However, the only such collateral consequence appellant identifies—a finding of dangerousness that could be used to justify appellant's continuing commitment in the future—does not apply here because, as appellant concedes, the court here granted the involuntary medication petition on the ground of incapacity alone.
Accordingly, we find that the appeal is moot, and we shall dismiss it.
We are constrained to add that we are troubled by the delays in prosecuting this appeal that prevented us from deciding it on its merits, and deprived appellant of any relief that we might have granted, had we found appellant's claims to be meritorious. Those delays appear to have been the result of three factors.
First, although the order appealed from was entered on August 26, 2016, the notice of appeal was not filed until October 17, 2016, nearly 60 days later. As a result, by the time appellate counsel was appointed to represent appellant on November 3, 2016, a substantial fraction of the one-year period the trial court order would be in effect had already elapsed.
Second, appellant's counsel sought no fewer than four extensions of time, totaling 143 days, to file the opening brief on appeal, and ultimately filed it on June 13, 2017, more than six months after its original due date. Respondent sought a single extension of time, of 30 days, and filed its brief on August 22, 2017; appellant filed a reply brief on September 11, 2017. As a result, by the time briefing was complete—indeed, by the time the respondent's brief was filed—this appeal was already moot.
Third, the hearing before the trial court was not reported, which forced counsel to follow the alternative approach of seeking permission to prepare a settled statement of the hearing. In each of the four applications for an extension of time, appellant's counsel represented that counsel were in the process of settling the record. But appellant's counsel did not even serve an application for permission to prepare a settled statement until February 20, 2017, and the settled statement was not approved until April 25, 2017.
We recognize that the lack of official court reporters in nearly all civil proceedings, an unfortunate byproduct of the State's budget crisis, presents a serious problem, particularly for indigent litigants such as appellant. We also understand that the process of agreeing on a settled statement can be cumbersome and time-consuming. But California Rules of Court, rule 8.346 provides, "As soon as a party learns that any portion of the oral proceedings cannot be transcribed, the party may serve and file in superior court an application for permission to prepare a settled statement." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.346(a), italics added.) "The judge must rule on the application within five days after it is filed." (Id., 8.346(b).) It should not have taken counsel nearly four months just to start the process.
Moreover, while this court granted each of the extensions of time requested by appellant, none of the applications informed us that the matter was time-sensitive or that the trial court's order would expire in August 2017. As the Attorney General points out, appellant's counsel could have sought a stay of the order, sought calendar preference and expedited briefing, or filed a petition for a writ of mandate and/or prohibition. Unfortunately, counsel pursued none of these alternatives, with the result that the appeal became moot before we could address it. Appellate counsel must do better if they are to preserve our jurisdiction and protect their clients' rights.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
Schulman, J. We concur: /s/_________
Streeter, Acting P.J. /s/_________
Reardon, J.
Judge of the Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------