1

Filed 3/10/22 In re A.O. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

In re A.O., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.O.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 A161968

 (Solano County

 Super. Ct. No. J44673)

Appellant A.O. was declared a dependent child of Solano 

County in 2019. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.)1 In 2020, the 

Merced County District Attorney filed a wardship petition in that 

county alleging appellant had committed the crimes of assault 

with a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed dirk or dagger and 

resisting a peace officer. (§ 602; Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 

21310, 148, subd, (a)(1).) The allegations were based on an 

incident in which appellant stabbed an employee of the group 

home where she was living with a fork, resisted the peace officers 

1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. 
2

who responded to the altercation, and was discovered to be 

carrying scissors inside her waistband. 

When a minor qualifies as both a dependent and a ward of 

the juvenile court, she cannot simultaneously be both. (§ 241.1; 

In re Marcus G. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1012.) Because 

appellant was already a dependent child when the wardship 

petition was filed, a report under section 241.1 was prepared to 

assist the court in determining whether she should be treated as 

a dependent or a ward under the juvenile law. The report 

recommended that appellant be treated as a ward. 

Appellant admitted the wardship petition on the condition 

that she be considered for a deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) at 

disposition, which was contemplated to be in Solano County 

following a transfer. The court determined that wardship under 

section 602, rather than dependency status, best suited

appellant’s needs. 

The case was transferred to Solano County for disposition, 

where, because the parties determined DEJ was unlikely, the 

court allowed appellant to withdraw her admission to the entire 

petition, waive her request for a DEJ determination, and admit 

only a single count alleging the possession of a dirk or dagger. 

Following appellant’s admission to the dirk or dagger count, 

appellant was placed on probation subject to several conditions. 

The court denied appellant’s request to reconsider the 

determination under section 241.1 that she be treated as a ward.

Appellant filed this appeal, challenging the determination 

that she should be treated as a ward and requesting a new 
3

section 241.1 assessment. After the respondent’s brief was filed, 

appellant advised this Court that she had successfully completed 

probation, and that the juvenile court had dismissed the matter 

and sealed the records pursuant to section 786. We requested 

supplemental briefing as to whether this rendered the appeal 

moot. Both parties filed supplemental letter briefs stating that it 

was. We agree. 

“As a general rule, an appellate court only decides actual 

controversies. It is not the function of the appellate court to 

render opinions ‘ “ ‘ “upon moot questions or abstract 

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

affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” ’ ” ’ [Citation.]

‘[A] case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical 

effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief.’ ” (People 

v. Rish (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1380.) “[A]n action that 

originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be 

maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by 

subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be 

without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be 

dismissed.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, 

§ 642, p. 669; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404.)

This appeal challenges the determination that appellant 

should be treated as a ward rather than as a dependent. Because 

the wardship matter has been dismissed and the records sealed, 

success on appeal, i.e., a determination that appellant should not 

have been treated as a ward or was entitled to a new report 
4

under section 241.1, would not change appellant’s status in 

juvenile court. This Court cannot provide effective relief. 

Courts do have the discretion to review moot appeals when 

they involve a matter of public interest or present issues that are 

likely to recur while evading appellate review. (People v. 

Gregerson (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 306, 321.) The parties have 

identified no such issues in this case.

The appeal is dismissed. 
5

NEEDHAM, J. 

We concur.

JACKSON, P.J.

SIMONS, J.

In re A.O. / A161968