Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF096006, James A. Edwards, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Chris Truax, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Gil Gonzalez and Peter Quon, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKinster, J.
A jury found defendant is a mentally disordered offender. (Pen. Code, § 2970.) The court ordered that defendant be committed to the Department of Mental Health’s care for a treatment period of one year. Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request to be treated on an outpatient basis. (§ 2972, subd. (d).) We dismiss the appeal because defendant’s contention is moot.
All further references to code sections are to the Penal Code.
FACTS
On February 28, 2007, the trial court ordered that defendant be placed in the custody of the Department of Mental Health for a treatment period that was set to expire on February 13, 2008.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request to be treated on an outpatient basis. We dismiss the appeal because defendant’s contention is moot.
An appeal from a commitment order for a mentally disordered offender is moot once the commitment period has expired. (People v. Merfield (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1074-1075.) Typically, reviewing courts will review such orders, despite the fact that they have been rendered moot, if (1) the reviewing court’s decision may affect the lower court’s right to continue jurisdiction over defendant’s subsequent commitment hearings; or (2) the case raises important issues that are capable of repetition but likely to evade review due to the time constraints of such orders. (People v. Fernandez (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 117, 134-135; see also In re Lemanuel C. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 33, 38, fn. 4.)
Defendant’s commitment order expired over seven months ago.
A resolution of defendant’s contention would have no effect on the trial court’s right to continue jurisdiction over subsequent commitment petitions, because defendant’s argument relates solely to whether he is treated on an inpatient or outpatient basis.
Additionally, defendant’s case does not raise an important issue that is capable of repetition but likely to evade review. Defendant argues that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in denying his request that he be treated as an outpatient, because (1) the court did not understand that it had the authority to make such an order; and (2) the court delegated its authority to the Department of Mental Health. We conclude that this issue is peculiar to this case, as it involves a question of whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion. Accordingly, this is not an issue that is capable of repetition but likely to evade review.
Moreover, we note that on November 14, 2007, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to be treated on an outpatient basis.
On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the November 14, 2007, minute order in defendant’s case No. PEF005511. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)
In sum, we conclude that defendant’s contention is moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: Hollenhorst, Acting P.J., Gaut, J.