Opinion
D071316
11-13-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DERRICK TRIERWEILER, Defendant and Appellant.
Lynelle K. Hee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION ON TRANSFER FROM THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCD268204) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura W. Halgren, Judge. Affirmed. Lynelle K. Hee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Derrick Trierweiler filed an appeal challenging probation conditions, including an electronic search condition. We rejected his arguments and affirmed the judgment. The California Supreme Court granted review and deferred further action pending its decision in In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 (Ricardo P.)). The Supreme Court has transferred the matter back to this court with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider it in light of Ricardo P. We now dismiss the appeal as moot.
BACKGROUND
Trierweiler pled guilty to threatening a public officer (Pen. Code § 71), and the trial court imposed a sentence consisting of three years' probation and 365 days in local custody. His probation conditions included an electronic search condition and probation officer approval for residence and employment. He appealed, challenging the electronic search condition under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, and both the search and approval conditions as unconstitutionally overbroad. We rejected these contentions and affirmed.
The Supreme Court granted review (Sept. 27, 2017, S243902) and deferred further action pending disposition of Ricardo P. In August 2019, the Court decided Ricardo P. Relevant here, it held an electronic search condition was invalid under Lent where there was no indication the defendant "had used or will use electronic devices in connection with . . . illegal activity," but declined to categorically invalidate them. (Ricardo P., supra, 7 Cal.5th at pp. 1116, 1128.)
The Supreme Court transferred this matter back to this court, directing us to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Ricardo P. We requested and received supplemental briefing. Trierweiler has informed us that he is no longer on probation, and his arguments on appeal are thus moot. The People agree that in light of Trierweiler's representation that he is no longer on probation, his appeal is moot.
The People state they agree "Argument I" of the opening brief is moot. Both Arguments I and II concern probation conditions, and they comprise the entirety of the appeal. We construe the People's agreement to apply to both arguments. --------
DISCUSSION
" ' "[W]hen, pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and without any fault of the [opposing party], an event occurs which renders it impossible for this court, if it should decide the case in favor of [defendant], to grant him any effectual relief whatever, the court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal" ' as moot." (People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 645.)
We agree with the parties that because Trierweiler is no longer on probation, his appeal is moot. A probation condition challenge becomes moot after probation is terminated or revoked. (See People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120, fn. 5; In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 611.) A ruling on the validity of the challenged probation conditions would have no practical effect and would not provide any effective relief. Although there are situations where we have discretion to consider moot issues, neither party has identified any reason to do so here.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
McCONNELL, P. J. WE CONCUR: HALLER, J. IRION, J.