Opinion
A143586
11-20-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PATRICK F., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ14023322)
This case challenges the validity of a probation condition authorizing the search of electronic devices, and returns to us following a grant of review and transfer by the California Supreme Court. We complied with our high court's order directing us to vacate our prior opinion and reconsider the cause in light of In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 (Ricardo P.). We now dismiss the appeal as moot.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On the morning of June 11, 2014, 17-year-old appellant burglarized the home of his next-door neighbor with the assistance of an adult cousin who was on parole. After he was apprehended, appellant admitted to police that he had entered the neighbor's home and taken the property while his cousin acted as a lookout. Although originally charged with first degree burglary, appellant admitted an amended juvenile wardship petition alleging he had committed a second degree burglary. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602; Pen. Code, § 459.)
At the interview with the probation officer, appellant explained that he decided to steal from his neighbor because he wanted marijuana and did not feel comfortable asking his parents for money he would use to buy drugs. He acknowledged smoking marijuana up to three times a day, admitted he had not attended school regularly for a long time, and acknowledged his marijuana use had influenced his decision not to attend school.
At the dispositional hearing, the court adjudged appellant a ward and placed him on probation, with appellant to reside with family members. The conditions of probation included an electronics search term to which defense counsel objected as having no nexus with the burglary. In light of appellant's admission that the burglary was motivated by his marijuana use, and the court's belief that marijuana users frequently post pictures and details of such use online, the court disagreed. Appellant challenged the electronics search condition under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent) and constitutional principles of vagueness and overbreadth. We modified the electronics search condition but otherwise affirmed the judgment.
The California Supreme Court granted review on February 17, 2016 (S231428) and deferred further action pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Ricardo P., S230923. In August 2019, our high court decided Ricardo P. As relevant here, the court held an electronic search condition was invalid under the third prong of Lent where there was no evidence the defendant had used or would "use electronic devices in connection with . . . illegal activity." (Ricardo P., supra, 7 Cal.5th at pp. 1116, 1119-1120.) Ricardo P. did "not 'categorically invalidate electronic search conditions' in juvenile delinquency cases. [Citation.] . . . . The court held only that the broad search condition, as written and imposed by the juvenile court, was invalid under Lent because it was not reasonably related to [the defendant's] future criminality." (In re Alonzo M. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 156, 165-166.)
After issuing its decision in Ricardo P., the California Supreme Court transferred this case back to this court, directing us to vacate our decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Ricardo P. We vacated our opinion and received supplemental briefing from appellant. According to that briefing, appellant's probation has now terminated.
II. DISCUSSION
"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.' " ' [Citation.] Thus, an ' "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." ' [Citations.] Put another way, ' "[a]n appeal should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief." ' " (People v. Pipkin (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1146, 1149-1150.)
According to appellant, the appeal is moot because his probation has terminated. He is correct. The termination of a defendant's probationary period moots an appeal challenging probation conditions. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120, fn. 5.) A ruling on the validity of the challenged probation conditions would have no practical effect and would not provide appellant with effective relief.
We decline to exercise our discretion to consider the merits of this moot appeal. Because our high court has spoken on the validity of a similar probation condition in Ricardo P., this appeal does not present "a novel question of continuing public interest" (In re Stevens (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1232) that is "capable of repetition, yet evading review" (Ogunsalu v. Superior Court (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 107, 111), such that we should review the issues notwithstanding mootness. No other exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply.
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
NEEDHAM, J. We concur. /s/_________
SIMONS, Acting P. J. /s/_________
BURNS, J.