1

Filed 3/20/23 P. v. Miles CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CALVIN CHRISTOPHER MILES,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A165122

 (Contra Costa County

 Super. Ct. No. 02003350832)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Calvin Christopher Miles appeals from a March 30, 2022 order finding 

him incompetent to stand trial and committing him to the Department of 

State Hospitals pursuant to Penal Code2 section 1370. While this appeal was 

pending, Miles was restored to competency. On August 10, 2022, the trial 

court found Miles competent and reinstated criminal proceedings. On August 

23, 2022, Miles pleaded no contest to vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)) and 

unlawfully causing a fire (§ 452, subd. (c)), both misdemeanors. The trial 

court placed him on probation for two years.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California 

Standards of Judicial Administration section 8.1 because it raises no 

substantial issue of fact or law.

2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

Miles’s counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and seeking 

independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 

Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).

Counsel asserts that in the event this court concludes Wende/Anders review 

is not applicable, we should follow the procedures set forth in 

Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). In passing, counsel 

notes that in light of Miles’s restored competency, this appeal may be moot 

and expresses no opposition to the dismissal of the appeal on that ground.

“ ‘ “[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.” ’ ” (People v. 

Delong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486 (Delong).) In the criminal context, 

review is permitted where the defendant who has completed his or her 

sentence has an interest in clearing his or her name or where, as a result of 

the sentence, the law imposes “disadvantageous collateral consequences” on 

the defendant. (People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742, 744 (Lindsey); 

6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2022) Criminal Appeal, 

§ 187.)

In Lindsey, supra, 20 Cal.App.3d 742, the defendant had been found 

insane within the meaning of a certain penal statute. The court suspended 

criminal proceedings and committed the defendant to a state hospital for care 

and treatment. (Id. at p. 743.) The defendant appealed the finding of 

insanity, but, during the pendency of the appeal, he was certified to have

become sane and was returned to the court, where the criminal charges were 

set for trial. (Ibid.) The appellate court, holding that the appeal was moot, 

observed: “The certificate of [sanity] . . . attests that defendant is no longer 
3

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 

[previously] made under . . . section 1370. 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; see Delong, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 489.)

Here, the March 30, 2022 finding imposes no disadvantageous 

collateral consequences on Miles; it caused a temporary delay in the 

disposition of his criminal case while his competency was being restored. 

No meaningful relief can be effectuated through a review of the March 2022 

incompetency finding and so this appeal is moot. (Lindsey, supra, 20 

Cal.App.3d at pp. 744–745.)

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.3

3 By reason of this holding, we need not determine the applicability of 

Wende/Anders or Ben C. to this case.
4

_________________________

Markman, J.*

We concur:

_________________________

Stewart, P.J.

_________________________

Richman, J.

People v. Miles (A165122)

* Judge of the Alameda Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.