Opinion
H038755
09-22-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT MICHAEL KLATT, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1094633)
The California Supreme Court transferred this case to us for reconsideration following the high courts decision in People v. Garcia (2017) 2 Cal.5th 792 (Garcia). The trial court found defendant Robert Michael Klatt guilty on two counts of lewd conduct with a minor aged 14 or 15. (Pen. Code § 288, subd. (c)(1).) The trial court granted a three-year term of probation to include six months in county jail. The court also required defendant to participate in a sex offender management program as a condition of probation.
In the original appeal, Garcia challenged probation conditions requiring him to waive any privilege against self-incrimination, waive any psychotherapist-patient privilege, and participate in polygraph examinations as part of the sex offender management program, among other things. We struck down the condition requiring a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination, and the Attorney General sought review. The high court granted review and deferred consideration pending a disposition in Garcia, supra, 2 Cal.5th 792. In Garcia, the high court held the challenged probation conditions were constitutional provided the probationer enjoys immunity against the direct and derivative use of any compelled statements made under the waiver conditions. The court then transferred this case back to us.
We requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing the effect of Garcia on this case, including the issue of whether the appeal is now moot. Both parties responded that Klatts probationary period has expired, rendering the appeal moot.
We agree with the parties that the appeal is moot. 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. " (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541, quoting Consolidated Vultee etc. Corp. v. United Auto etc. Workers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 859, 863.) Because we cannot grant any effective relief following the expiration of Klatts probationary period, we will dismiss the appeal as moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
RUSHING, P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
PREMO, J. /s/_________
GROVER, J.