Court Opinion

ID: 9390556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 19:03:07.881842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:35.338082
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/27/23 P. v. Carter CA1/5
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,
             Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   A159190
 v.
 DAWON GREGORY CARTER,                                                   (Contra Costa County
             Defendant and Appellant.                                    Super. Ct. No. 05-111105-3)

         Defendant Dawon Gregory Carter filed an appeal from a trial court
order denying his petition under former Penal Code1 section 1170.95 (now
section 1172.6) for resentencing relief for his attempted murder conviction.
The trial court found at the prima facie stage that defendant was ineligible
for relief because he pleaded guilty to attempted murder rather than murder.
         On September 10, 2021, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 775
(2021–2022 Reg. Sess.), which amended former section 1170.95 effective
January 1, 2022. (Stats. 2021, ch. 551.) This bill changed the governing law
in several respects. Relevant here, it authorized defendants convicted of
attempted murder, including our defendant, to seek relief and limited the

         1   Unless otherwise stated, all statutory citations herein are to the Penal
Code.

                                                               1
types of evidence that may be considered at the hearing to determine whether
relief is warranted.
      Based on this legislative change, defendant requested, and we agreed,
to issue an order staying this appeal until further order and remanding the
matter to the trial court with directions to consider whether the amendments
to former section 1170.95 altered its conclusion that defendant was not
entitled to relief.
      Pursuant to this limited remand, defendant filed, and then
subsequently withdrew, his petition. Accordingly, on April 12, 2023, we
issued an order directing the parties to file letter briefs regarding whether
the appeal should be dismissed as moot given defendant’s decision to
withdraw his petition. Defendant’s letter brief acknowledged the withdrawal
of his petition but was neutral as to whether his appeal was rendered moot.
The People, in turn, argued that by withdrawing his petition defendant
obtained the relief he claimed he was entitled to in this appeal. As such, his
appeal should be dismissed as moot because this court is no longer able to
grant him any effectual relief. We agree with the People.
      This court has the power to direct a limited remand “as may be just
under the circumstances.” (§ 1260; see People v. Awad (2015) 238
Cal.App.4th 215, 222 [“Under appropriate circumstances [such as where a
limited remand has been ordered], the same criminal proceeding may be
simultaneously pending in the trial court and the Court of Appeal”].) A
limited remand may be warranted, for example, “to resolve one or more
factual issues affecting the validity of the judgment . . . or for the exercise of
any discretion that is vested by law in the trial court” (People v. Braxton

                                         2
(2004) 34 Cal.4th 798, 818–819), or, as here, to allow a defendant to pursue
relief under section 1172.6 (People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 858).2
      However: “ ‘ “[W]hen, pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower
court, and without any fault of the [opposing party], an event occurs which
renders it impossible for this court, if it should decide the case in favor of
[defendant], to grant him any effectual relief whatever, the court will not
proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal” ’ as moot.”
(People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 645; see People v. Schaffer (2020) 53
Cal.App.5th 500, 506.)
      Here, the withdrawal of defendant’s petition resolved the parties’
dispute before the trial court. As such, there is no effective relief that this
court can grant defendant on appeal. (See Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v.
City of Redondo Beach (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 852, 865–866 [appeal
dismissed as moot where “[a]ppellants chose to voluntarily comply with the
judgment, thereby waiving their right to challenge it”].) Moreover, neither
party suggests this matter is one that is “of continuing public interest, is
likely to recur, [or] might otherwise evade appellate review.” (People v.
Schaffer, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 506 [reviewing court exercised its
discretion to consider an otherwise moot claim where it was of continuing
public interest].) Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed.

      2 Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th 830, was abrogated in part on another
ground in Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2, which amended section 1172.6,
subdivision (g) to expressly allow defendants whose convictions are not final
to seek relief under Senate Bill No. 1437 on direct appeal.

                                         3
                                             _________________________
                                             Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Simons, J.

_________________________
Burns, J.

A159190/People v. Dawon Gregory Carter

                                         4