Opinion
A148154
10-25-2019
In re CARLOS H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARLOS H., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. JW12-6397)
This case returns to us following a grant of review and transfer by the California Supreme Court. We complied with our high court's order directing us to vacate our prior opinion and reconsider the cause in light of In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 (Ricardo P.). We now dismiss the appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In early 2016, Carlos H. (Carlos) admitted he possessed a concealable firearm (Pen. Code, § 29610) and an assault weapon (Pen. Code, § 30605) on two different occasions. The juvenile court placed Carlos on home probation with various conditions including a condition that provided: "Any electronic and/or digital devices in your possession or under your custody or under your control may be searched at any time of the day or night, by any peace or probation officer, with or without a warrant or with or without reasonable or probable cause. Electronic and/or digital devices include but are not limited to cell phones, smartphones, iPads, computers, laptops and tablets. You are also ordered to provide any and all passwords to the devices upon request to any peace or probation officer." In addition, Carlos was ordered to "disclose passwords . . . for his social media accounts to probation officer[s] and law enforcement officers, police officer without reasonable or probable cause upon request."
Carlos appealed and challenged two of the probation conditions. He argued as to the electronic search condition that it was invalid under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent), precluded by the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Pen. Code, § 1546 et seq.), and unconstitutional. We held the condition shall be modified to state: "Any electronic and/or digital devices in your possession or under your custody or under your control may be searched for text messages, email, telephone call history, voice mail, or other communication programs like FaceTime or Skype, and social media accounts at any time of the day or night, by any peace or probation officer, with or without a warrant or with or without reasonable or probable cause. Electronic and/or digital devices include but are not limited to cell phones, smartphones, iPads, computers, laptops and tablets. You are also ordered to provide any and all passwords to the devices and social media accounts upon request to any peace or probation officer." In all other respects, we affirmed.
The California Supreme Court granted review (May 10, 2017, S241067) and deferred further action pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Ricardo P., S230923. In August 2019, our high court decided Ricardo P. and held, as relevant here, that an electronic search condition was invalid under Lent where there was no evidence the defendant had used or would "use electronic devices in connection with . . . illegal activity." (Ricardo P., supra, 7 Cal.5th at pp. 1116, 1119-1120.)
After issuing its decision in Ricardo P., the California Supreme Court transferred this case back to this court on September 25, 2019, directing us to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Ricardo P. On October 3, counsel for Carlos submitted a letter to this court stating in part: "appellant has reached his majority and has been discharged from probation, rendering the case moot. Therefore, appellant does not intend to file a supplemental brief in this Court." The Attorney General did not file a supplemental brief. (Calif. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(b)(1).)
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.)
The termination of a defendant's probationary period moots an appeal challenging probation conditions. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120, fn. 5; In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 611.) Here, because Carlos has reached the age of majority and his probation has terminated, a ruling on the validity of the challenged probation condition would have no practical effect and would not provide him with effective relief. Accordingly, the appeal is now moot.
Moreover, we decline to exercise our discretion to consider the merits of this moot appeal. "[A] reviewing court may exercise its inherent discretion to resolve an issue rendered moot by subsequent events if the question to be decided is of continuing public importance and is a question capable of repetition, yet evading review." (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404.) Because our high court has spoken on the validity of a similar probation condition, this appeal does not present a question of "continuing public importance" that is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
Petrou, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Siggins, P.J. /s/_________
Goode, J.
Retired Judge of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------