Filed 10/31/22 Stewart 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

 B317959

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. LA0888741)

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 

Stewart-Oaten, Deputy Public Defenders for Petitioner Myles 

Stewart.
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 Attorneys 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.) The superior 

court 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 superior court 

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 superior court issued 

an order reducing Stewart’s probation to three 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, we informed the parties that we 

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

superior court 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. We 
3

requested that Stewart and the People submit supplemental 

briefs on these issues. (See Evid. Code, § 459, subd. (d); Gov. 

Code, § 68081.) 

We have received and considered the requested 

supplemental 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, subdivision (a), we take judicial notice of 

the facts that in May 2022 the superior court 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 superior court 

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 superior court to discharge him from 

probation. Because the superior court 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 dismissed.

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.