Filed 8/27/13 P. v. Aguilera CA5 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ANDRES AGUILERA, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

F066559 

(Super. Ct. No. 12M0020) 

O P I N I O N

THE COURT

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. John G. 

O’Rourke, Judge. (Ret. Judge of the Kings Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) 

 Paul Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent. 

-ooOoo- 

 

 Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Detjen, J. 
2 

Appellant Andres Aguilera was found not competent to stand trial by the Kings 

County Superior Court pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1368, and criminal proceedings 

were suspended in 2012. He filed the instant appeal in which he challenged the length of 

his commitment and the sufficiency of the evidence to support a medication order. 

During the pendency of this appeal, appellate counsel informed us that appellant has 

since been found competent and criminal proceedings were reinstated. He thereafter 

entered a plea, admitting to a violation of section 4501.1 (prisoner assault on a 

nonprisoner), and was sentenced to a prison term on June 28, 2013. Given the current 

status of this case, we will dismiss this appeal as moot and affirm the judgment. 

DISCUSSION

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. A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical 

effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State 

Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.) Thus, an 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. (People v. 

DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 

404.) 

People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742 (Lindsey) supports a mootness 

determination here. In that case, the superior court determined after a hearing that a 

criminal defendant was insane and ordered him committed to a state hospital. The 

 

1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 
3 

defendant appealed the order. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant was 

certified as sane and criminal proceedings resumed. (Id. at p. 743.) Lindsey dismissed 

defendant’s pending appeal of the original commitment as moot because “the 

superintendent’s certification of sanity terminates the commitment, leaving no prejudicial 

consequences which could be ameliorated by a successful appeal.” (Id. at p. 744, italics 

added.) 

Lindsey clearly controls the resolution of appellant’s case. Here, as in Lindsey, the 

superior court found defendant was not competent to stand trial, and defendant filed an 

appeal from the court’s judgment on that issue. In the interim, the court revisited the 

matter, found appellant was restored to competence, and reinstated criminal proceedings. 

The finding of competency renders this appeal moot. 

Appellant opposes dismissal on two grounds. First, he urges “there is always the 

possibility that doubts will again be expressed as to competency, leading to another 

commitment, or about his mental status, potentially interfering with his probation.” 

Second, he argues there is a “continuing stigma of once having been found not 

competent.” 

Appellant’s first argument is meritless given his subsequent plea and prison term 

sentence. As for his second argument, the court in Lindsey rejected an identical 

contention. 

“The certificate of [sanity] attests that defendant is no longer under ... a 

[mental] disability. The law imposes no disadvantageous collateral 

consequences upon one whose trial has had to be postponed by reason of 

such a temporary disability.... If defendant’s mental state is considered in 

future proceedings, the issue will turn upon what that state is found to be as 

of the relevant time, and not the fact that an order was made under ... 

section 1370 [in May 1971]. If any social opprobrium is thought to attach 

by reason of the commitment, that is nothing which is likely to be relieved 

by an appellate decision. The temporary commitment is nothing from 

which defendant needs to ‘clear his name.’” (Lindsey, supra, 20 

Cal.App.3d at pp. 744-745, italics added.) 
4 

Finally, this court acknowledges it may exercise its discretion to decide the issues 

raised in this appeal if they involve important issues of public interest that are capable of 

repetition yet evade review. (See, e.g., People v. Cheek (2001) 25 Cal.4th 894, 897-898; 

Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 524, fn. 1; In re David H. (2008) 

165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1634.) We decline to do so in this case, however, because 

appellant has not identified any important issue of public interest. (See, e.g., In re 

Michelle M. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, 329.) While appellant challenged the length of 

his commitment and the sufficiency of the evidence for the court’s order for the 

involuntary administration of psychotropic medication, both orders have expired given 

the subsequent proceedings in this case. 

 Therefore, we conclude subsequent events have rendered the present appeal moot. 

This case is not one where appellant may suffer future collateral disabilities as a result of 

the challenged ruling. The appropriate remedy is dismissal. (Lindsey, supra, 20 

Cal.App.3d at p. 744.) 

DISPOSITION

 Pursuant to its July 11, 2013, order and no objection having been filed, this court 

takes judicial notice of the postappeal proceedings in People v. Aguilera, Kings County 

Superior Court, case No. 12CM7310, as described in appellate counsel’s July 3, 2013, 

letter brief. On this court’s own motion, the appeal is dismissed as moot. The judgment 

is affirmed.