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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Superi or Court of Kings County. John G. O’Rourke, Judge. (Ret. Judge of the King s 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 no t competent to stand trial by the Kings County Superior Court pursuant to Penal Code 1 section 1368, and criminal proceedings were suspended in 2012. He filed the instant appeal in wh ich 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 deci des actual controversies. It is not the function of the appellate court to render op inions upon moot que stions 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 pa rties 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 controvers y cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent act s 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 determ ined after a hearing that a
criminal defendant was insane and ordered him committed to a st ate hospital. The

1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.3 defendant appealed the order. During the pe ndency 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 orig inal commitment as moot because “the superintendent’s certification of sa nity 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 compet ent 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 competen ce, and reinstated crim inal 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 ag ain be expressed as to competency, leading to another commitment, or about his mental status, pot entially interfering with his probation.” Second, he argues there is a “continuing stigma of once havi ng been found not competent.” Appellant’s first argument is meritless gi ven his subsequent plea and prison term
sentence. As for his seco nd argument, the court in Lindsey rejected an identical
contention. “The certificate of [sanity] attests th at defendant is no longer under ... a [mental] disability. The law imposes no dis advantageous collateral consequences upon one whose trial has had to be postponed by reason of such a temporary disability.... If defenda nt’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 fa ct that an order was made under ... section 1370 [in May 1971]. If any soci al opprobrium is thought to attach by reason of the commitment, that is nothing which is likely to be relieved by an appellate decision. The te mporary 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 exerci se 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.) Wh ile appellant challenged the length of his commitment and the sufficiency of the evidence for the co urt’s order for the involuntary administration of psychotropic me dication, 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 suffe r 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 descri bed 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.