Court Opinion

ID: 9955149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 19:02:14.296953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:17.771447
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/27/24 P. v. K.W. CA4/1

                   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                  COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                   DIVISION ONE

                                           STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          D083263

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.
                                                                      (Super. Ct. No. FWV22004237)
 K.W.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, Joseph B. Widman, Judge. Dismissed.
         Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
         K.W. appeals an order committing him to the Department of State
Hospitals (DSH) pursuant to Penal Code,1 section 1370. However, during the
pendency of this appeal, the trial court approved a certificate of restoration

1        All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
and ordered the criminal proceedings against K.W. reinstated. We conclude
that with K.W.’s restoration to competency and the reinstatement of criminal

proceedings, this appeal is moot. We therefore dismiss the appeal.2
                                   BACKGROUND
      In November 2022, the Office of the San Bernardino District Attorney
charged K.W. with two counts of robbery (§ 211) and one count of resisting,
obstructing, or delaying a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), along with an
allegation he suffered three prior serious or violent felony convictions
(§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d); 667, subds. (b)–(i)). At a hearing in July 2023,
K.W.’s counsel declared a doubt as to K.W.’s competency, and the trial court
suspended criminal proceedings pursuant to section 1368. On August 11,
2023, the trial court found K.W. incompetent to stand trial, and on
September 8, 2023, ordered him committed to DHS for a two-year maximum
term. (§§ 1369, 1370.) While the instant appeal was pending, the trial court
reinstated criminal proceedings after finding that K.W.’s competency to stand

trial was restored.3
                                 DISCUSSION
      On appeal, K.W.’s counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to
conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende). In making this request, counsel argues that due process

2     Since this case raises no substantial issues of law or fact, we resolve the
case by memorandum opinion and do not elaborate on factual or procedural
background beyond what is required for our analysis. (Cal. Stds. Jud.
Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851–854.)

3     On our own motion, we augment the record to include the December 22,
2023, minute order finding K.W. competent to stand trial and reinstating
criminal proceedings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).)
                                        2
considerations may require application of the procedures set forth in
Wende/Anders to an order of judicial commitment pursuant to section 1370.
(See Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529.) Counsel
acknowledges, however, that this court may dismiss the appeal as moot
because the trial court already reinstated criminal proceedings after
terminating K.W.’s state hospital commitment due to restoration of his
competency.
      We granted K.W. the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his
own behalf, which he did. K.W. does not address whether his challenge on
appeal is moot due to the reinstatement of criminal proceedings. Rather, he
asserts various ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel claims.
      “ ‘ “[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.)
      For example, in People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742, 744
(Lindsey), the court dismissed an appeal where the defendant, who
challenged his commitment to the state hospital, was found able to stand
trial and criminal proceedings were reinstated. The court explained, “[t]he
law imposes no disadvantageous collateral consequences upon one whose
trial has had to be postponed by reason of such a temporary disability. In the
event defendant is convicted, the fact that he had been so disabled . . . should
not affect the kind of sentence imposed by the trial court. 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

                                        3
order was made [regarding his mental incompetency in the past].” (Id. at
p. 744.)
      Here, as in Lindsay, the criminal proceedings against K.W. resumed
after the trial court found his competency had been restored. The trial court’s
order committing K.W. to DSH imposes no disadvantageous collateral
consequences for which effective relief may now be provided on appeal, and
the appeal is, therefore, moot. Although we retain discretion to address the
merits of the appeal if it raises an important issue that is capable of
repetition yet tends to evade review, no such issue has been raised here. (See
Conservatorship of Carol K. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 123, 133 [“appeal is not
moot if it raises issues that are capable of repetition yet avoiding review.”].)
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed.

                                                                       RUBIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

                                        4