Filed 8/17/17 In re A.J. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| In re A.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.J., Defendant and Appellant.
|
A149201
(City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. JW156063)
|
Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained an allegation of felony second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),[1] and declared appellant A.J. a ward of the court subject to various probation conditions. Appellant filed the instant appeal in which he challenged an electronic search condition, a condition prohibiting him from possessing weapons, as well as a condition requiring him to stay away and have no contact with the victims and his minor confederates. During the pendency of this appeal, appellate counsel informed us that appellant has been committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice and is, therefore, no longer subject to the challenged conditions. Given the current status of this case, we will dismiss the appeal as moot.
DISCUSSION
As a general rule, an appellate court only decides actual controversies. It is not the function of the appellate court to render opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it. A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.) Thus, an 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. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404.)
This court acknowledges it may exercise its discretion to decide the issues raised in this appeal if they involve important issues of public interest that are capable of repetition yet evade review. (See, e.g., People v. Cheek (2001) 25 Cal.4th 894, 897-898; Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 524, fn. 1; In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1634.) We decline to do so in this case, however, because the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 501-503 forecloses appellant’s challenge to the weapons and no-contact conditions as lacking express knowledge requirements. Finally, the issue of electronic search conditions is presently before the California Supreme Court and is slated for argument starting as soon as September 2017. (See In re Ricardo P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 676, review granted Feb. 17, 2016, S230923.) Accordingly, this case is not one where the issues will evade review.
We conclude subsequent events have rendered the present appeal moot, and the appropriate remedy is dismissal.
DISPOSITION
This court takes judicial notice of the postappeal proceedings in In re A.J., San Francisco County Superior Court, case No. JW156063, as described in appellate counsel’s July 28, 2017 letter to the court. On this court’s own motion, the appeal in case number A149201 is dismissed as moot.[2]
_________________________
REARDON, J.
We concur:
_________________________
RUVOLO, P. J.
_________________________
RIVERA, J.
In re A.J. A149201
