Opinion
A151385
03-19-2018
In re TERRELL O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TERRELL O., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J01-01545)
Terrell O. was adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court following sustained allegations that he had committed felony assault and criminal threats, as well as misdemeanor assault, battery, and vandalism. Terrell subsequently admitted a probation violation and, consistent with his request, the court imposed a two-year commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). After approximately four months, the DJJ recommended recall of the sentence. After a contested hearing on recall, the court found Terrell still needed the structure of DJJ and denied the motion. Terrell appeals this order.
Assigned counsel has submitted a Wende brief, certifying an inability to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also submitted a declaration confirming Terrell was advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any points which he wishes to call to the court's attention. No supplemental brief has been submitted. As required, we have independently reviewed the record. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110.) We agree there are no arguable issues. We find any issues as to Terrell's disposition moot and therefore dismiss the appeal.
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 1, 2015, the Contra Costa District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) alleging Terrell (then 15 years old) committed three misdemeanors: assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 1) and battery (id., §§ 242, 243, subd. (a); counts 2, 3). On September 15, 2015, an amended petition added allegations of felony assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (id., § 245, subd. (a)(4), count 4), felony criminal threats (id., § 422; count 5), and misdemeanor vandalism (id., § 594, subd. (b)(1); count 6).
At an October 2015 contested jurisdictional hearing, the court sustained counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and dismissed count 3. The court declared Terrell a ward of the juvenile court and ordered him to remain in detention at juvenile hall pending placement. Terrell's maximum term of confinement was set at five years six months. The probation office later reported that 12 group homes or programs would not accept Terrell because of his cognitive disabilities, aggressive behavior, inappropriate sexual behavior, or educational needs. At a Welfare and Institutions Code section 737 placement review in March 2016, the court committed Terrell to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility program for 90 days, despite a probation determination that he was not an appropriate candidate. A few days after placement, Terrell was removed for failure to make an appropriate adjustment to the program. A notice of probation violation was filed for his failure to follow the program rules.
At a pretrial hearing on the probation violation, Terrell's counsel advised the court that Terrell wanted to admit the violation and be committed to DJJ up until age 18 and then, if possible, go to the Regional Center. Terrell did not want to spend any more time in juvenile hall. Terrell subsequently admitted the probation violation on an understanding the DJJ commitment would be for a two-year maximum pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 731. The court found a knowing and intelligent waiver of rights and committed Terrell to DJJ for a stay not to exceed two years. The court specifically found "the mental and physical conditions and qualifications of the minor are such as to render it probable that he would be benefited by the reformatory, educational, discipline or other treatment provided by the [DJJ]."
Pursuant to a September 2016 DJJ letter requesting Terrell's commitment be recalled, the matter was calendared for a motion to recall the DJJ sentence. A continued contested hearing on the motion was ultimately held in April 2017. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found Terrell needed DJJ's structure, denied the request for recall, and ordered Terrell's return to DJJ. Terrell's trial counsel filed a timely notice of appeal.
DJJ's "Initial Case Review" noted that Terrell's "low IQ and intellectual disability, makes it difficult for him to materially benefit from therapeutic interventions at [DJJ]. His level of functioning creates strained peer relationships and places him at increased risk of predatory behaviors by his peers. . . . [P]hysical health conditions including encopresis and enuresis further complicate his establishing relationships with peers." Terrell was housed on a mental health unit at DJJ "designed for the most impaired youth."
SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By declaration, appellate counsel advises us that Terrell was discharged from DJJ on January 5, 2018, and appeared before the juvenile court on January 17. He was continued as a ward with probation supervision, and DJJ's jurisdiction was terminated. Counsel concludes that any issues arising from the juvenile court's denial of the motion to recall Terrell's sentence are moot based on these subsequent events.
Terrell was declared a dependent minor in February 2002, and parental rights were terminated. He had lived in 18 different placements including 13 foster homes, one nonrelative home, and four group homes. Terrell soon turns 18. Appellate counsel represents that an application has been filed with the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 607.2 to return Terrell to dependency to enable him to receive assistance as a nonminor dependent.
We take judicial notice of the court's January 17, 2018 minute order. --------
DISCUSSION
We agree that Terrell's discharge from DJJ renders any issues as to his placement moot. " ' " 'A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief.' " ' " (People v. Alsafar (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 880, 886.) This is not a matter raising important procedural issues that are " ' " ' "capable of repetition, but evading review," ' " ' " such that we would exercise our inherent power to retain the matter. (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
BRUINIERS, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
JONES, P. J. /s/_________
SIMONS, J.