P. v. Jones
Filed 4/5/06 P. v. Jones CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WOODROW WILSON JONES, Defendant and Appellant. |
F047317
(Super. Ct. No. SC028577A)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge.
Richard M. Doctoroff, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Craig S. Meyers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Woodrow Wilson Jones previously had been found to be a sexually violent predator and was committed to Atascadero State Hospital (ASH). His initial and subsequent commitments have been the subject of several nonpublished opinions from this court.[1]
In the present appeal, Jones contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the petition, expert testimony was based on unreliable scientific evidence, the psychotherapist-patient privilege was violated, counsel was ineffective, and the issues are not moot.
Because the case is moot, we will dismiss this appeal. We will, however, also address the merits briefly.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On March 18, 1997, Jones was found to be a sexually violent predator within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq.[2] Subsequent commitment petitions were filed and his initial term of commitment was extended each time for an additional two years.[3]
On January 30, 2003, a petition to extend commitment was filed. A probable cause hearing was held on January 14, 2004. The trial court found probable cause that Jones came within the provisions of section 6600 and ordered Jones held for trial.
On February 1, 2005, the trial court found the allegations of the petition to extend commitment to be true and ordered Jones committed to ASH. The commitment period under this order expired on March 18, 2005.
DISCUSSION
I. Mootness
Jones contends the appeal is not moot because, although the current commitment has expired, a new petition was filed and trial on the subsequent petition was set for November 2005.
â€
