From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hall

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Apr 12, 2018
A150950 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2018)

Opinion

A150950

04-12-2018

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEMOYNE HALL, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. CR180646, CR180152)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Lemoyne Hall appeals the trial court's order authorizing the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication. Hall contends the court erred in allowing his treating physician to testify about case-specific facts based on inadmissible hearsay as prohibited by People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez). The involuntary medication order expired during the pendency of this appeal and thus, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 5, 2016, the Napa County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint charging Hall with assault by means to produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4) and battery with serious bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (d).

On March 13, 2017, the court held a hearing regarding the request for involuntary administration of psychotropic medication. The only witness who testified was Dr. Benjamin Goldberg. Dr. Goldberg is a Senior Psychiatrist Specialist at the Department of State Hospitals. He testified that Hall's treating psychiatrist requested that he evaluate Hall because Hall had been refusing medication. Dr. Goldberg reviewed medical reports, legal records, and spoke to Hall's treatment team.

Hall, who is 36 years old, began showing signs of mental illness at age 18 and suffers from a severe form of schizophrenia. The medications help his symptoms, although he has not been in full remission. Without medication, his symptoms worsen and he suffers from auditory hallucinations, visual hallucinations, delusional thinking, and confusion.

Hall was committed to Napa State Hospital on a conservatorship because he was deemed too aggressive and difficult to treat in a regular hospital. During his conservatorship, he was charged with two cases of assault and deemed incompetent to stand trial.

Dr. Goldberg testified that during the week before the hearing, he learned from Hall's treating psychiatrist that he was showing signs of "severe schizophrenia." He was aggravated and unpredictable and had inappropriately touched two female staff members.

Dr. Goldberg testified it was his opinion that Hall did not have sufficient capacity to make his own decision about his medication. He stated this belief was based upon his meeting with Hall a month earlier where he expressed views about his illness and medication that did not seem rational. Hall did not appreciate that the voices he hears are the result of schizophrenia and believes they are caused by the medication. Hall does not appear to understand the consequences of not taking medication, including deterioration and violent behavior.

The court found that given the charged conduct and the two incidents of touching female staff that Hall was a danger to others. The court stated Hall did not have the "skill, training, experience or objectivity to self prescribe, and to second guess, basically, his treating physicians on what should be prescribed." The previous medications that Hall preferred did not control his aggressive behavior. The court stated that the doctors needed to be able to use their medical judgment to get the right mix of medications. The court granted the petition.

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Mootness

Hall filed a notice of appeal on March 23, 2017 and briefing was completed in October 2017. Hall did not, however, file a motion for calendar preference or alert the court to the need to expedite this appeal. (California Rules of Court, Rule 8.240.)

We requested supplemental briefing from the parties in March 2018 about whether the expiration of the medication order on March 13, 2018 rendered the appeal moot.

Hall argues that while the appeal is "technically moot," the court should exercise its discretion because there are important issues that may recur. Respondent argues the appeal should be dismissed as moot.

We agree with Respondent that the appeal is moot. " 'As a general rule, an appellate court only decides actual controversies. It is not the function of the appellate court to render opinions " ' " 'upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or . . . declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.' " ' " [Citation.] "[A] case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief. [Citation.]" ' " (People v. Gregerson (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 306, 321.) We cannot provide Hall any effective relief because the order he challenges has already expired by its own terms.

We recognize an appellate court has discretion to address the merits of an otherwise moot appeal if there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties or the case presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur. (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 537; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 746-747; Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479-480.)

Hall argues this case is likely to recur and if Hall was still in Napa State Hospital, we might agree. But the Attorney General represents that "Hall has been conserved and is no longer housed in a State Hospital." Prior to briefing being concluded in this case, as of September 2017, Hall was no longer in the custody of the Department of State Hospitals. While it is true as a general matter that the application of Sanchez continues to develop in the case law, we think the process of enunciating the law on this issue should take place in live cases, not in what would amount to an advisory opinion. Under these circumstances, we do not exercise our discretion to decide the issue on the merits.

IV.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot.

/s/_________

SMITH, J. We concur: /s/_________
STREETER, Acting P. J. /s/_________
REARDON, J.

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------


Summaries of

People v. Hall

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Apr 12, 2018
A150950 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2018)
Case details for

People v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEMOYNE HALL, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Apr 12, 2018

Citations

A150950 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2018)