Filed 10/31/22 Ste war t v. Superior Court CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

MYLES STEWART

,

P etitioner

,

v.

THE SUPERIOR C OURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

,
Respondent ;

THE PEOPLE

,

Re al Party in Interest

. B 317959

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. L A 0888741 )

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate; Gregory A. Dohi

, Judge. Petition dismissed

. Ricardo D. Garcia, Public Defender, Albert J. Menaster, Head Deputy Public Defender, Jacob Kachatryan and Nick
Stewar t

- Oaten , Deputy Public Defenders for Petitioner Myles
Stewar t

.2 Rob Bonta

, Attorney General

, Lance E. Winters

, Chief Assistant Attorney General

, Susan Sullivan Pithey

, Assistant Attorney General

, Michael R. Johnson, David E. Madeo, David Glassman and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorney s General for Real Party in Interest

. No appearance for Respondent Superior Court of

Los Angeles County.

____________________

I.

On October 10, 2019, petitioner Myles Stewart pleaded no contest to first degree burglary

. (Pen. Code, § 459

. ) T he s uperior

c ourt suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for five years , subject to certain conditions

. In January 2022 , after the Legislature amended Penal
Code section 1203.1 to limit, generally, felony probation terms

to two years, Stewart made a motion in the s uperior c ourt

to terminate his probation. The court denied the motion, and Stewart sought review before us by petition for writ of mandate.
We issued an order to show cause. Meanwhile, on May 31, 2022, the s uperior c ourt issued

an order reducing Stewart’s probation to t hree years. On
October 10, 2022

— the third anniversary of the order placing Stewart on probation

— the court terminated Stewart ’s probation, stating that it had been “ successfully completed .” On October 20, 2022, w e informed the parties that we

were consider ing : (1) taking judicial notice of the facts that the

s uperior c ourt had reduced Stewart’s probation to three years

and thereafter terminated probation; and (2) dismissing the petitioner’s petition on the ground that this case is moot. We3

requested that Stewart and the People submit supplemental
briefs on these issues. (See Evid. Code, § 45 9 , subd. ( d ) ; Gov. Code, § 68081 .)
We have received and considered the requested suppl emental briefs. Both parties agree that the case is moot

. The People assert that we should dismiss Stewart’s petition , and Stewart has no objection to our doing so.

II.
Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (d)
& (h)

, and section 459, sub division (a), w e take judicial notice of
the facts that in May 2022 the s uperior c ourt reduced Stewart’s probation to three years and , on October 10, 2022, the court
terminated Stewart’s probation

. “A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have

no practical impact .” ( Simi Corp. v. Garamendi (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1503 .) “ ‘ “ [A]lthough a case may originally
present an existing controversy, if before decision it has, through act of the parties or other cause, occurring after the

commencement of the action, lost that essential character, it
becomes a moot case or question which will not be considered by
the court. ” ’ ” ( Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1175, 1183 .) Here, Stewart sought an order in the s uperior c ourt requesting that his probation be terminated , which the court
denied

. By the instant writ petition, he challenges that order and
seeks a writ directing the s uperior c ourt to discharge him from probation. Because t he s uperior c ourt has now terminated his probation , there is no further relief we can grant. Accordingly,
the issues raised in the petition are moot and the case is
dismissed.4 DISPOSITION

The petition is di smissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
I concur.

BENDIX , J.

BENKE , J. *

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.