Opinion
C083208
07-31-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AHMED M. MAO, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 14F07418)
In August 2016, a jury convicted defendant Ahmed M. Mao of felony possession of marijuana for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359; statutory section references that follow are found in the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise stated.) In October 2016, the trial court placed defendant on probation for five years and imposed mandatory fees and fines, including a $50 laboratory fine plus $130 penalties and assessments ($180 total). (§ 11372.5, subd. (a); Pen. Code, §§ 1464, 1465.7; Gov. Code, §§ 70373, 76000, 76104.6, 76104.7.)
In February 2017, the trial court granted defendant's petition and redesignated his felony conviction as a misdemeanor, pursuant to Proposition 64. (§ 11361.8.) The trial court recalled and vacated defendant's October 2016 sentence and ordered probation for three years, with new terms and conditions. The court imposed a restitution fine of $150 and a corresponding $150 probation revocation fine, suspended unless probation is revoked. (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.44.)
On appeal, defendant challenges clerical errors in the minute order relating to the October 2016 sentence, an electronic device search condition from the October 2016 probation order, and surcharges and penalty assessments added to the crime lab fee from the October 2016 probation order.
In supplemental briefing, the People argue that defendant's appeal is moot because the terms and conditions of defendant's probation have been vacated, including the electronic device search condition and the crime lab fee and associated surcharges and penalty assessments. Given that it is no longer possible for this court to grant relief with respect to the vacated October 2016 probation order, we shall dismiss defendant's appeal as moot. (Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc. (1964) 62 Cal.2d 129, 132 [the court's duty "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"].)
Defendant does not argue we should exercise our discretion to consider the issues presented in his appeal, and we decline to do so. (Giraldo v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 231, 259 [" '[i]f an action involves a matter of continuing public interest and the issue is likely to recur, a court may exercise an inherent discretion to resolve that issue, even though an event occurring during its pendency would normally render the matter moot' "].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
HULL, J. We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J. RENNER, J.