P. v. Burdette

Filed 5/15/07 P. v. Burdette CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

The People appeal from a judgment dismissing the information against Robert Burdette after granting his motion to suppress evidence. While this appeal was pending, Burdette died. Despite the mootness of the appeal, the People argue that we should nevertheless resolve the issue raised on appeal challenging the trial courts grant of Burdettes motion to suppress evidence. We decline to do so. All proceedings in this action have permanently abated by reason of Burdettes death, and the matter will be remanded to the superior court for the entry of an order to that effect. (People v. Dail (1943) 22 Cal.2d 642, 659.)

We may, in appropriate circumstances, exercise our discretion to retain and decide an issue which is technically moot. [Citation.] We do so when the issue is of substantial and continuing public interest. [Citation.] Such a resolution is particularly appropriate when the issue is presented in the context of a controversy so short-lived as to evade normal appellate review [citations], or when it is likely to affect the future rights of the parties [citation]. (Chantiles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowners Assn. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 914, 921.) We conclude that this is not such a case.

Whether the trial court properly concluded that the police conduct in this case violated Burdettes Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches is dependent on the specific facts of the situation. Our courts and the United States Supreme Court have consistently eschewed bright-line rules, instead emphasizing the fact-specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry implicating the Fourth Amendment. (Ohio v. Robinette (1996) 519 U.S. 33, 39; see, e.g., People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4th 824, 836, fn. 3.) Given the fact-driven nature of the question presented, it is not likely that the resolution of this appeal would provide much-needed guidance for the orderly administration of justice . . . [citation] . . . . (In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 25; but see In re Sodersten (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1163, 1217-1218.) Nor is the issue one that has troubled the lower courts (see, e.g., In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 879), or is likely to recur but evade normal appellate review. Thus, contrary to the Peoples argument, we conclude this appeal does not present any issue that warrants the exercise of our discretion to resolve it now, despite the evident mootness of the appeal.

DISPOSITION

All proceedings in Case No. A114286 are permanently abated, and the matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to enter an order in Superior Court Case No. 198511 to the effect that all proceedings with respect to Robert Burdette are permanently abated.

_________________________

McGuiness, P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Pollak, J.

_________________________

Siggins, J.

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.