Opinion
A155535
12-05-2019
In re RICHARD V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD V., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J18-00711)
On May 31, 2019, this court issued an opinion upholding a term of Richard V.'s probation that required him to submit electronic devices under his control to a search of any text messages, voicemail messages, photographs, email accounts, and other social media accounts and applications, and to provide any passwords necessary to access the specified information, at the request of a probation or peace officer.
On October 23, 2019, the California Supreme Court transferred the case to this court with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d).) In response to our request for supplemental briefing, both Richard's counsel and respondent advised us that Richard's probationary term has been terminated and he is no longer subject to the electronic search term. Both parties agree that the appeal is therefore moot. (See, e.g., People v. Dunley (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1445 ["A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief"].)
Richard's counsel also notes that the juvenile court's jurisdiction over Richard has been terminated. Accordingly, we find that the issue, also raised on appeal, regarding whether the court erred in setting a maximum term of confinement is likewise moot. (See People v. Dunley, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1445.) --------
Accordingly, our decision in this case filed May 31, 2019, is vacated and the appeal is dismissed.
/s/_________
Kline, P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Richman, J. /s/_________
Miller, J.