Opinion
C086058
02-27-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHALEISE CONCEPCION HERRERA, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 17FE018317)
Defendant Chaleise Concepcion Herrera pleaded no contest to grand theft and identity theft with a prior conviction. She was sentenced to a split term of one year in county jail followed by one year of mandatory supervision. On appeal, she contends an electronics search condition of her mandatory supervision is invalid under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 and unconstitutionally overbroad. Finding defendant is no longer subject to the term of mandatory supervision upon which the disputed search condition rests, we shall dismiss the appeal as moot.
DISCUSSION
We dispense with the facts of defendant's crimes as they are unnecessary to resolve this appeal. We incorporate the relevant procedural facts in our discussion.
Defendant was sentenced on the day of her plea, October 5, 2017. The trial court imposed, over defendant's objection, an electronics search condition of mandatory supervision. We withheld consideration of defendant's appeal until after the California Supreme Court decided In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 (Ricardo P.), a case addressing the validity of such conditions.
We subsequently requested supplemental briefing from the parties on whether defendant's term of mandatory supervision has ended and, if so, whether its expiration rendered this appeal moot. Both parties filed briefs stating defendant is no longer subject to the mandatory supervision imposed in this case, and agree the appeal should be dismissed as moot. They are correct.
" '[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.' [Citation.]" (People v. Herrera (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1198.) Defendant's sole arguments on appeal are limited to the reasonableness and constitutionality of the electronics search condition. As a result, her appeal has been mooted by the termination of her mandatory supervision because we would be unable to grant her any effective relief on appeal. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120, fn. 5; People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 408, fn. 8; In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 611.)
Moreover, although we retain the discretion to consider the merits of a moot appeal, we decline to do so here. The validity of electronics search conditions has already been addressed by the California Supreme Court in Ricardo P. There, the California Supreme Court concluded that the electronics search condition imposed in that case was not reasonably related to future criminality and was therefore invalid under Lent. (Ricardo P., supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1128.) The Ricardo P. court expressly stated that it was not "categorically invalidat[ing] electronics search conditions" (ibid.) and noted that "[i]n certain cases, the probationer's offense or personal history may provide . . . a sufficient factual basis from which [the trial court] can determine that an electronics search condition is a proportional means of deterring the probationer from future criminality. [Citations.]" (Id. at pp. 1128-1129.) Thus, an analysis of the validity of defendant's condition requires a fact-based inquiry into the circumstances of her particular offense and does not present a question of continuing public importance. (See People v. Alsafar (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 880, 883 [reviewing court may exercise discretion to consider moot issue if question is of continuing public importance and is capable of repetition, yet evading review].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
HULL, J. We concur: /s/_________
RAYE, P. J. /s/_________
MAURO, J.