Court Opinion

ID: 9374805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 22:02:40.460286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.250474
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/23/23 P. v. Robles CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E078832

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FVI20000031)

 JESSIE JAVIER ROBLES,                                                   OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John P. Vander

Feer, Judge. Dismissed as moot.

         Matthew C. Tymann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Charles C. Ragland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Colette C. Cavalier and

Nora S. Weyl, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       Defendant and appellant Jessie Javier Robles appeals the trial court’s order

modifying the conditions of his probation. Because Robles’s probation term has expired,

we dismiss the appeal as moot.

                                     BACKGROUND

       On January 6, 2021, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Jessie Javier Robles

pleaded no contest to one felony count of possession of child pornography (Pen. Code,

§ 311.11, subd. (a)) in exchange for a grant of probation. (Unlabeled statutory references

are to the Penal Code.) Robles requested immediate sentencing and waived a probation

report. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Robles on formal

probation for 24 months on standard terms and conditions, including a custody term of

two days in county jail with credit for two days served, and the court ordered Robles to

register as a sex offender (§ 290.006, subd. (a); § 290, subd. (c)).

       On March 1, 2022, the San Bernardino County Probation Department filed a

request to modify Robles’s probation to add 24 additional sex offender terms. On

March 29, 2022, the trial court imposed 12 of the requested probation terms, with some

modifications. Robles appealed, arguing the order modifying the terms of his probation

was in excess of the court’s jurisdiction because there was no change in circumstances

providing a factual basis for the modification. Robles also challenges three of the added

probation terms as unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, or otherwise invalid.

       After Robles’s 24-month probation term expired on January 5, 2023, and the

record had not been augmented with any “order affecting the sentence or probation”

                                              2
issued by the trial court after the appellate record had been certified (Cal. Rules of Court,

rule 8.340(a)), we ordered supplemental briefing addressing whether this appeal should

be dismissed as moot. We grant the People’s unopposed request for judicial notice of the

trial court’s docket in case No. FVI20000031 showing there have been no probation

violations. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d)(1), 453.) In their supplemental briefs, the

parties agree that the appeal should be dismissed as moot.

                                       DISCUSSION

       “An appeal should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events renders it

impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief. [Citation.]”

(Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000)

82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479.) Because Robles seeks an order striking or modifying certain

conditions of probation, the expiration of his 24-month probation term renders this appeal

moot. (See People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 408, fn. 8; People v. Carbajal (1995)

10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120, fn. 5.)

                                      DISPOSITION

       The appeal is dismissed as moot.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
                                                                 MENETREZ
                                                                                            J.
We concur:

MILLER
                Acting P. J.

FIELDS
                           J.

                                              3