P. v.
Wilkinson
Filed 5/22/13 P. v. Wilkinson CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TODD
MARTIN WILKINSON,
Defendant and
Appellant.
C070180
(Super. Ct. No. CM035166)
Defendant Todd Martin Wilkinson pled
no contest to failing to register as a sex offender and admitted he had served
two prior prison terms. The trial court
sentenced him to state prison for five
years, suspended execution of said sentence, and placed him on probation. Defendant appeals, contending the condition
of his probation that he enroll in and successfully participate in a program of
sex offender specific therapy should be stricken as invalid. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
As a result of defendant’s 1997
conviction for rape, he is required to
register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290. On September
26, 2011,
he was charged with failure to register as required. It was also alleged he had served two prior
prison terms and had a prior strike conviction.
On December
8, 2011,
defendant pled no contest to failing to register and admitted the prior prison
term allegations. He entered the plea
with the understanding that the remainder of the complaint and another separate
case would be dismissed, no charges would be pursued on a pending police
report, and he would receive five years’ probation at the outset.
On January
5, 2012,
the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years for
failing to register and two consecutive one-year terms for the prior prison
term enhancements, for an aggregate term of five years in state prison. The trial court then suspended execution of
the sentence and placed defendant on probation for a period of five years. As conditions of probation, defendant was
required, inter alia, to enroll in and successfully participate in a program of
sex offender specific therapy, complete a one-year, minimum, residential
substance abuse treatment program and report to probation as directed.
On January
13, 2012,
defendant filed his notice of appeal
in this case -- case No. C070180.
However, on January 20, 2012, a petition was filed
alleging defendant had violated probation by terminating his participation in
his residential substance abuse treatment program and failing to report to
probation as directed. Defendant
admitted terminating his participation in his
and, on June 28, 2012, the trial court denied
reinstatement on probation, revoked the stay of execution, and ordered
defendant serve the previously imposed five year prison sentence. Defendant appealed from the trial court’s June
28, 2012,
orders in case No. C071925.
On September 7, 2012, we directed
defendant’s appellate counsel to inform this court whether this appeal had been
rendered moot by defendant’s appeal in case No. C071925. Appellate counsel informed this court that
the issue raised in this appeal would remain relevant if the trial court’s June
28, 2012, orders at issue in case No. C071925 were reversed and probation were
reinstated.
This court has since affirmed the
trial court’s June 28, 2012, orders denying reinstatement on probation,
revoking the stay of execution, and ordering defendant serve the previously
imposed five-year prison sentence. We
take judicial notice of our unpublished opinion and the record in
8, 2013)
C071925. (Evid. Code, §§ 451, 452,
459.)
title="">[1] Accordingly, the probation condition raised
herein is no longer at controversy.
Where subsequent events prevent this
court from granting effective relief because our decision would not affect the
outcome in the proceedings on remand, the appeal is moot. (In re
Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498.) Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, raising
the validity of a probation condition separate and distinct from that which
resulted in the subsequent revocation of defendant’s probation, as moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as
moot.
ROBIE , Acting P. J.
We concur:
BUTZ , J.
HOCH , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Parties are entitled to a reasonable opportunity, before a
cause is submitted for decision, to present information relevant to: (1) the propriety of taking notice of matters
not previously noticed; and (2) the tenor of the matters to be noticed. (Evid. Code, §§ 455, subd. (a), 459,
subd. (c).) However, in the interest of
judicial economy, and because there appears to be no dispute as to the
propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor thereof, we take notice of
our records in case No. C071925 without having provided the parties with that
opportunity in advance, subject to any party’s right to petition for
rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)
