Opinion
C087544
01-30-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES THOMAS WHITTAKER, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 18FE010512)
Defendant Charles Thomas Whittaker pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale. He was sentenced to a stipulated disposition of a split 16-month term, consisting of eight months in county jail and eight months of mandatory supervision.
On appeal, defendant contends an electronic search condition of mandatory supervision is unconstitutionally overbroad. As defendant is no longer on mandatory supervision, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
DISCUSSION
We dispense with the facts of defendant's crime as they are unnecessary to resolve this appeal. We incorporate the relevant procedural facts in our discussion.
Defendant was sentenced on the day of his plea, June 18, 2018. The trial court imposed, without objection, an electronic search condition of mandatory supervision. We withheld consideration of defendant's appeal until after the California Supreme Court decided In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, a case addressing the validity of such conditions under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481.
We subsequently requested supplemental briefing from the parties on whether defendant's term of mandatory supervision has ended and, if so, whether its expiration rendered this appeal moot. Both parties filed supplemental briefs and agree defendant is no longer subject to the mandatory supervision imposed in this case.
The People assert the case should be dismissed as moot, but defendant contends it should not. In support of this claim, defendant notes that briefing in this case was completed just four months after appointment of appellate counsel, while our request for briefing on mootness issued almost a year after that. According to defendant, dismissing the appeal without addressing the Fourth Amendment claim he raised serves only to undermine the public's confidence in the ability of the courts to fairly address claims of error. We agree with the People.
" '[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed.' " (People v. Herrera (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1198.) Defendant's sole contention on appeal is limited to the constitutionality of the electronic search condition. As a result, his appeal has been mooted by the termination of his mandatory supervision because we would be unable to grant him any effective relief on appeal. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120, fn. 5; People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 408, fn. 8; In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 611.)
Moreover, although we retain the discretion to consider the merits of a moot appeal, we decline to do so here. The validity of electronic search conditions has already been addressed by the California Supreme Court in Ricardo P. There, the California Supreme Court concluded that the electronic search condition imposed in that case was not reasonably related to future criminality and was therefore invalid under Lent. (In re Ricardo P., supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1128.) Furthermore, the concurring and dissenting opinion and the Court of Appeal in that case both reached the same result through overbreadth analysis. (Id. at p. 1129 (conc. & dis. opn. of Cantil, C.J.).) Since the constitutionality of conditions of probation or mandatory supervision can be addressed on an appeal from the judgment or order imposing the condition, any potential overbreadth challenge to an electronic search condition will not evade review.
We held this appeal pending the California Supreme Court's decision in Ricardo P. for sound reasons of judicial economy. To determine the validity of the condition imposed here, where no meaningful relief could be given, is not a proper use of judicial resources and would not advance the public's perception of the judiciary.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
Robie, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Butz, J. /s/_________
Murray, J.