Opinion
H051464
09-17-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTOR LUIS SANTIAGO, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C2205048)
Danner, J.
Appellant Victor Luis Santiago was convicted of a felony and ordered to serve a three-year term on post release community supervision (PRCS). The trial court found Santiago violated the terms of his PRCS on five occasions. At a formal hearing on the fourth violation petition, the trial court admitted testimony from a probation officer that, according to the records of a residential drug treatment program which the probation department had ordered Santiago to complete, Santiago had been discharged from the program without completing it. The trial court found Santiago in violation of the terms of his PRCS and ordered him to serve 180 days in the county jail. On appeal, Santiago argues that admission of the probation officer's testimony constituted a prejudicial violation of his due process rights.
Santiago has served his 180-day sentence on the PRCS violation, and his PRCS term expired earlier this year. We conclude the issue Santiago raises on appeal is moot and dismiss the appeal.
The facts of Santiago's crime are not relevant to this appeal.
Santiago was convicted on April 1, 2021, of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). He was sentenced to two years in prison and released on a three-year term of PRCS on the date of his conviction. Santiago's PRCS term was scheduled to expire on April 1, 2024.
Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On May 3, 2022, the probation department petitioned to revoke Santiago's PRCS. On July 27, 2022, Santiago admitted he had violated his PRCS by failing to report to parole. He was ordered to serve a jail sentence of 136 days, to be served concurrently with his sentence in a different criminal matter. The 136-day term was deemed served, and PRCS was reinstated.
In the other criminal matter, Santiago appears to have violated the terms of his probation (by failing to report to the probation department) on a conviction for domestic violence.
On September 21, 2022, the probation department petitioned to revoke Santiago's PRCS a second time. The petition listed Santiago's PRCS discharge date as May 7, 2024. On January 5, 2023, Santiago admitted a violation of his PRCS, and he was ordered to serve a jail sentence of 180 days, which was deemed served. PRCS was reinstated.
The record on appeal does not indicate the basis for the second PRCS violation.
On March 2, 2023, the probation department petitioned to revoke Santiago's PRCS a third time. The petition again listed the PRCS discharge date as May 7, 2024. On March 7, 2023, Santiago admitted he had violated the terms of his PRCS. The trial court ordered him to serve 180 days in the county jail, gave him credit for time served of 21 days, and reinstated his PRCS.
The record does not make clear the basis for the third PRCS violation, but it appears to be related to drug use. Santiago's counsel stated "if we look at the circumstances of the violation, he's struggling with drug use." Santiago's counsel suggested that residential treatment would be appropriate. The probation officer stated "we would definitely get him into a program once he shows up to the probation department . . . we'll give him the help he needs."
On August 15, 2023, the probation department petitioned to revoke Santiago's PRCS a fourth time. The petition again listed the PRCS discharge date as May 7, 2024.
On September 19, 2023, the trial court held a contested revocation hearing on whether Santiago had violated his PRCS, as alleged in the fourth petition. At this hearing, which is the subject of Santiago's current appeal, a probation officer testified (over defense counsel's objection) that Santiago had been discharged on June 8, 2023, from a residential drug treatment program, because he had left the program and failed to return. Santiago failed to complete the residential treatment program. The probation officer based her testimony on a treatment status report, which was prepared for Santiago by the program director of the residential drug treatment program and provided to the probation department. The probation officer also testified that on August 7, 2023, San Jose police officers arrested Santiago for misdemeanor violations of sections 273.6 and 148.9, and Health and Safety Code, section 11364. The probation officer testified she had not received any certificate that Santiago had completed any residential treatment program.
Among other conditions of his PRCS, Santiago was prohibited from knowingly possessing or using controlled substances and was required to "participate in rehabilitation programming as recommended by the supervising county agency."
At the conclusion of the September 2023 hearing, the trial court found Santiago had violated the terms of his PRCS by failing to complete substance abuse treatment counseling as directed by the probation department. The court ordered him to serve 180 days in the county jail, awarded him 88 days credit for time served, and reinstated his PRCS. Santiago timely appealed the trial court's September 19, 2023 order finding him in violation of his PRCS.
Following the hearing that is the subject of this appeal, on December 8, 2023, the probation department petitioned to revoke Santiago's PRCS a fifth time. The petition again listed the PRCS discharge date as May 7, 2024. On January 4, 2024, Santiago admitted he had violated the terms of his PRCS, and the court ordered him to serve 180 days in the county jail, gave him credit for time served of 16 days, and reinstated his PRCS.
II. DISCUSSION
Santiago contends the trial court erroneously admitted testimonial hearsay without a finding of good cause when it admitted the probation officer's testimony about Santiago's failure to complete the residential drug treatment program. Santiago further contends the error was prejudicial, because the only evidence that Santiago had violated his PRCS came from the probation officer's testimony. Santiago requests that we reverse the trial court's September 19, 2023 order finding him in violation of his PRCS.
Santiago appears to concede that the legal question is moot because Santiago's PRCS term was scheduled to end in May 2024. Santiago asks this court nonetheless to address the issue as one of continuing public importance for other defendants, even though this court cannot provide effective relief to Santiago. Santiago further contends that the issue is capable of evading review.
The Attorney General argues the appeal should be dismissed as moot because Santiago has already served the sentence on the PRCS violation and his PRCS term ended on May 7, 2024. In the alternative, the Attorney General contends that Santiago's rights were not violated because the trial court did not err in considering the information contained in the treatment status report as reliable documentary evidence.
There is no evidence in the record that Santiago remains on PRCS, and he has not suggested otherwise. We therefore agree with the Attorney General that dismissal is appropriate. Governing principles of justiciability dictate that we 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." '" (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.) "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, 1150.) Here, even if we were to conclude that Santiago's legal contention has merit, we would be unable to grant him any relief related to his PCRS term.
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P. J. Grover, J.