Filed 7/11/17 In re J.D. CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX


In re J.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
2d Crim. No. B275710
(Super. Ct. No. 16JV-00043)
(San Luis Obispo County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.


The San Luis Obispo District Attorney filed an amended juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, former subd. (a)) alleging that appellant J.D. committed the felony offense of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)) and the misdemeanor offense of altering the appearance of an imitation firearm (id. § 20150). Appellant admitted the misdemeanor charge. The felony charge was dismissed, but the parties agreed that it could be considered as true for purposes of the disposition hearing.
Appellant was declared a ward of the juvenile court and placed on probation. On appeal, he contends that two of his probation terms are unconstitutional. Specifically, he contests Term 22, which requires that he “[s]ubmit to search of any electronic devices used to store or transmit information that you own, possess, or control, at any time, with or without probable cause, by probation or law enforcement; to include . . . ‘password[s] for purpose of identifying possession or ownership of weapons and threats of violence.’” He also challenges Term 45, requiring that the probation department approve in advance any video games appellant wishes to play.
The matter was scheduled for oral argument on June 15, 2017. On June 9, 2017, appellant’s counsel advised that appellant “has completed probation and the [juvenile] court has terminated probation.” We subsequently confirmed with the juvenile court that appellant has successfully completed probation and that the court has terminated his wardship, dismissed his section 602 petition and ordered that his juvenile records be sealed under section 786.
“A case is moot when the decision of the reviewing court ‘can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed.’ [Citation.]” (MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 214.) Now that appellant is no longer on probation, we conclude that the appeal challenging the terms of his probation is moot and should be dismissed.
Appellant’s counsel does not dispute that the appeal is moot, but requests that we exercise our discretion to decide the issues presented. We decline to do so. Appellant has not demonstrated that the “pending case poses an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur.” (In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23; Steiner v. Superior Court (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1479, 1485-1486.)
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.




PERREN, J.
We concur:



YEGAN, Acting P. J.



TANGEMAN, J.


Linda D. Hurst, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________

Laini Millar Melnick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.