Court Opinion

ID: 9379986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 20:02:41.136837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:08.245300
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/16/23 In re S.J. CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE

 In re S.J.                                               B321817

             on                                           (Los Angeles County
                                                          Super. Ct. No.
             Habeas Corpus.                               MJ24396)

      ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in habeas corpus. Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, Brian C. Yep, Judge. Petition
dismissed.
      Erika Anzoategui, Alternate Public Defender, Megan N.
Gallow, and Mark Wynn for Petitioner S.J.
      Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi and Justin W. Clark for
Respondent Los Angeles County Probation Department.
      George Gascon, District Attorney, Tracey Whitney and
Kenneth M. Von Helmolt, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real
Party in Interest the People of the State of California.
       At approximately 4:00 p.m. on Friday, July 15, 2022, the
Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department’s Transit Service Bureau
arrested petitioner S.J. after he assaulted and robbed someone at
a Metro station. An investigation revealed an outstanding bench
warrant issued by the juvenile court over a year earlier, on May
14, 2021, after S.J. absconded from his probation placement.
       On Tuesday, July 19, 2022, at 2:34 p.m., the Los Angeles
County District Attorney declined to file a new Welfare and
Institutions Code section 602 petition against S.J. in connection
with the Metro robbery and assault. Two days later, on
Thursday, July 21, 2022, S.J. was taken to the Antelope Valley
courthouse for a detention hearing on the probation violation.
       Upon appearing in court, counsel for S.J. asked that he be
released from custody because he was not given a detention
hearing within 48 hours (excluding non-court days) after being
taken into custody. Counsel relied on California Rules of Court,
rule 5.752(e)(1), which requires a detention hearing to commence
within 48 hours, excluding non-court days, after “[t]he child has
been taken into custody on a warrant or by authority of the
probation officer.” Failure to comply with the deadline entitles
the minor to immediate relief. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 632,
subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.752(i).)
       The People countered with California Rules of Court, rule
5.752(b), which provides “[a] child must be released from custody
within 48 hours, excluding non-court days, after first being taken
into custody unless a petition or notice of probation violation has
been filed either within that time or before the time the child was
first taken into custody.” The People argued, in effect, that the
48-hour period to commence a detention hearing specified in
California Rules of Court, rule 5.752(e)(1) runs consecutive to the

                                 2
48-hour period specified in California Rules of Court, rule
5.752(b) to file a new section 602 petition.
        The juvenile court declined to release S.J., reasoning that
rule 5.752(e)(1)’s 48-hour deadline to commence a detention
hearing for a minor taken into custody pursuant to a warrant
began running only when the District Attorney’s Office declined
to file a new 602 petition. S.J. petitioned this court for writ of
habeas corpus on July 26, 2022. We issued an order to show
cause to the Probation Department on August 1, 2022, and
directed the juvenile court to release S.J., with any reasonably
necessary conditions, pending disposition of this matter.
        The juvenile court complied with our release order. The
court then terminated jurisdiction over petitioner on August 24,
2022, one day after he turned 18 years of age.
        In light of these developments, the parties agree this
appeal is now moot. That is our view as well.
        We recognize we have discretion to decide a moot issue that
presents an issue of public importance and is capable of
repetition yet evading review (see, e.g., People v. Alsafar (2017) 8
Cal.App.5th 880, 883), but we are unconvinced this issue will
evade review and we decline to exercise our discretion to resolve
this moot cause. (Verdugo v. Target Corp. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 312,
316, fn. 1 [“we do not resolve abstract questions of law”]; Paul v.
Milk Depots, Inc. (1964) 62 Cal.2d 129, 132 [“It is settled that ‘the
duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide
actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into
effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract
propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot
affect the matter in issue in the case before it’”].)

                                  3
                       DISPOSITION
     The habeas corpus petition is dismissed as moot.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICAL REPORTS

                          BAKER, J.

We concur:

     RUBIN, P. J.

     KIM, J.

                               4