People v. Freeman

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD LEE FREEMAN, Defendant and…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

Date published: Apr 30, 2020

A157960 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2020)

Opinion

A157960

04-30-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD LEE FREEMAN, Defendant and Appellant.

Humes, P.J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Marin County Super. Ct. Nos. CR195473A & CR196215A)

Defendant Ronald Freeman appeals from a trial court order modifying the judgment, which was entered after he was convicted of felony stalking and related offenses. His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Freeman was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. We conclude that the appeal is moot and therefore dismiss it.

In a previous opinion, we considered Freeman's consolidated appeals from the original December 2017 judgment and a November 2018 amended judgment. (People v. Freeman (Feb. 27, 2020, A153587 & A156363) [nonpub. opn.].) We conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for the trial court to hold a hearing under Penal Code section 1001.36 to determine Freeman's eligibility for mental-health diversion.

The instant appeal is from a June 5, 2019 order modifying Freeman's presentence custody credits. After this appeal was filed, Freeman's appellate counsel filed a successful motion in the trial court to correct the custody-credits calculation. Thus, even if we had not already reversed the judgment in the previous appeal, any issue involving Freeman's custody credits would be moot. (People v. Alsafar (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 880, 886 [case is moot " ' " 'when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief' " ' "].) This is not a matter raising important issues that are " ' " ' "capable of repetition, yet evading review," ' " ' " and we therefore decline to exercise our discretion to retain the matter. (Ibid.)

The appeal is dismissed as moot.

/s/_________

Humes, P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Margulies, J. /s/_________
Banke, J.