Opinion
Page 808a
148 Cal.App.4th 808a __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIMOTHY ANDREW MERFIELD, Defendant and Appellant. No. B190093 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Sixth Division March 19, 2007San Luis Obispo County, Super. Ct. No. F381374
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed on February 21, 2007, (147 Cal.App.4th 1071; ___Cal.Rtpr.3d___ ), be modified as follows:
On page 3, [147 Cal.App.4th 1075, advance report, after the 1st full par.], immediately preceding the first paragraph, the following new paragraph is added:
While we review the merits of appeals from timely filed petitions that are rendered technically moot during the pending of the appeal, we do so because the appellant is subject to recertification as an MDO, and the issues are otherwise likely to evade review due to the time constraints of MDO commitments. (People v. Jenkins, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 672, fn. 2; People v. Gibson, supra, 204 Cal.App.3d at p. 1429.) For the same reasons, trial courts consider the merits of timely filed petitions that are subsequently rendered technically moot as the result of the delays inherent in the judicial process, which are beyond the petitioner's control. Where, as here, the petitioner causes the delay by waiting until after the commitment order has expired to seek relief, the petition is untimely and is subject to dismissal on the ground of mootness.
There is no change in the judgment. Merfield's petition for rehearing is denied.