Filed 3/16/23 In re S.J. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE

In re S.J.

 on

 Habeas Corpus.

 B321817

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

 MJ24396)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in habeas corpus. Superior

Court of Los Angeles County, Brian C. Yep, Judge. Petition

dismissed.

Erika Anzoategui, Alternate Public Defender, Megan N.

Gallow, and Mark Wynn for Petitioner S.J.

Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi and Justin W. Clark for

Respondent Los Angeles County Probation Department.

George Gascon, District Attorney, Tracey Whitney and

Kenneth M. Von Helmolt, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real

Party in Interest the People of the State of California.
2

At approximately 4:00 p.m. on Friday, July 15, 2022, the

Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department’s Transit Service Bureau

arrested petitioner S.J. after he assaulted and robbed someone at

a Metro station. An investigation revealed an outstanding bench

warrant issued by the juvenile court over a year earlier, on May

14, 2021, after S.J. absconded from his probation placement.

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022, at 2:34 p.m., the Los Angeles

County District Attorney declined to file a new Welfare and

Institutions Code section 602 petition against S.J. in connection

with the Metro robbery and assault. Two days later, on

Thursday, July 21, 2022, S.J. was taken to the Antelope Valley

courthouse for a detention hearing on the probation violation.

Upon appearing in court, counsel for S.J. asked that he be

released from custody because he was not given a detention

hearing within 48 hours (excluding non-court days) after being

taken into custody. Counsel relied on California Rules of Court,

rule 5.752(e)(1), which requires a detention hearing to commence

within 48 hours, excluding non-court days, after “[t]he child has

been taken into custody on a warrant or by authority of the

probation officer.” Failure to comply with the deadline entitles

the minor to immediate relief. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 632,

subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.752(i).)

The People countered with California Rules of Court, rule

5.752(b), which provides “[a] child must be released from custody

within 48 hours, excluding non-court days, after first being taken

into custody unless a petition or notice of probation violation has

been filed either within that time or before the time the child was

first taken into custody.” The People argued, in effect, that the

48-hour period to commence a detention hearing specified in

California Rules of Court, rule 5.752(e)(1) runs consecutive to the
3

48-hour period specified in California Rules of Court, rule

5.752(b) to file a new section 602 petition.

The juvenile court declined to release S.J., reasoning that

rule 5.752(e)(1)’s 48-hour deadline to commence a detention

hearing for a minor taken into custody pursuant to a warrant

began running only when the District Attorney’s Office declined

to file a new 602 petition. S.J. petitioned this court for writ of

habeas corpus on July 26, 2022. We issued an order to show

cause to the Probation Department on August 1, 2022, and

directed the juvenile court to release S.J., with any reasonably

necessary conditions, pending disposition of this matter.

The juvenile court complied with our release order. The

court then terminated jurisdiction over petitioner on August 24,

2022, one day after he turned 18 years of age.

In light of these developments, the parties agree this

appeal is now moot. That is our view as well.

We recognize we have discretion to decide a moot issue that

presents an issue of public importance and is capable of

repetition yet evading review (see, e.g., People v. Alsafar (2017) 8

Cal.App.5th 880, 883), but we are unconvinced this issue will

evade review and we decline to exercise our discretion to resolve

this moot cause. (Verdugo v. Target Corp. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 312,

316, fn. 1 [“we do not resolve abstract questions of law”]; Paul v.

Milk Depots, Inc. (1964) 62 Cal.2d 129, 132 [“It is settled that ‘the

duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide

actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into

effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract

propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot

affect the matter in issue in the case before it’”].)
4

DISPOSITION

The habeas corpus petition is dismissed as moot.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

KIM, J.