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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or

or dered 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 OPINION 1

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 Code 2 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

2 3, 2022, Miles pleaded no contest to vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)) and

unlawfully causing a fire (§ 452, subd. (c)), both misdemeanor s

. 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 , c ounsel

note s that in light of Miles’s restored competency, t his 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 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 ( 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 defen dant. (

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

6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law ( 4th ed. 20 22 ) Criminal Appeal,

§ 187.)

In Lindsey

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

insane within the meaning of a certain pena l statute. The c ourt suspended

c riminal 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 longer3

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 wi ll 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 De l ong , supra , 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 489.)

H ere, t he 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.

N o 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 _________________________ M arkman , J.*

We concur:

_________________________ S tewart , P.J.

_________________________ R ichman , J.

People v. Miles (A1 65122 )

* Judge of the Alameda Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.