In re Royal H. CA1/3 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 5/19/21 In re Royal H. CA1/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 THREE
    In re ROYAL H., a Person Coming
    Under the Juvenile Court Law.
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                  A160373
    v.
    ROYAL H.,                                                              (Contra Costa County
    Defendant and Appellant.                                   Super. Ct. No. J18-00122)
    Minor, Royal H., appeals from a disposition order on a probation
    violation in this proceeding filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section
    602.1 His sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred in
    imposing probation conditions relating to gangs. Because Royal has
    successfully completed probation and his wardship has been vacated, we
    dismiss the appeal as moot.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    On March 29, 2018, the Contra Costa County (County) District
    Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions
    All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code
    1
    unless otherwise specified.
    1
    Code section 602 alleging Royal, who was 15 years of age at the time,
    committed two violations of felony unlawful driving or taking a vehicle (Veh.
    Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and two misdemeanor violations of driving without a
    license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). On April 25, 2018, the County filed an
    amended petition adding a third violation of felony unlawful driving or taking
    a vehicle and a third misdemeanor violation of driving without a license
    based on an incident occurring on April 23, 2018. On April 30, 2018, as part
    of a negotiated disposition, Royal admitted two counts of misdemeanor
    unlawful driving or taking a vehicle and the remaining allegations were
    dismissed.
    Royal was placed on home supervision with probation conditions and
    released to his mother. While under home supervision, Royal sustained
    numerous probation violations for violating curfew, leaving home, taking an
    automobile without permission, and possession of a stolen car. On
    February 25, 2019, Royal was placed at Children’s Home of Stockton. He
    absconded from Children’s Home of Stockton in May 2019 and surrendered to
    Contra Costa Juvenile Hall in September 2019. On October 17, 2019, Royal
    was placed at Trinity Youth Services (TYS). In December 2019, the TYS
    director filed a notice of placement change for removal from TYS, citing
    Royal’s ongoing crossing of boundaries, multiple physical altercations, poor
    school attendance, unsafe actions, and intimidating acts toward peers and
    staff. On January 23, 2020, Royal was placed at Courage to Change.
    On March 3, 2020, Royal absconded from Courage to Change, and a
    bench warrant issued. On March 6, 2020, Royal was arrested on the bench
    warrant. On April 1, 2020, the juvenile court ordered Royal committed to
    Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility for a six-month program, plus an
    additional 180-day conditional release/parole period. One of the terms of
    2
    probation was a prohibition from knowingly associating with gang members;
    knowingly participating in gang activity; or knowingly possessing, displaying,
    or wearing gang-related clothing or insignia. The gang prohibition condition
    was imposed based on reports from staff at Courage to Change that Royal
    had displayed the number 4 as a gang sign and shouted, “ ‘F*cking Norte,
    fake ass southerner!’ ” to a peer.
    Royal filed a notice of appeal contesting the gang prohibition probation
    terms. On April 5, 2021, Royal’s appellate counsel submitted a letter to the
    court notifying us that Royal successfully completed probation and that his
    wardship was vacated on March 30, 2021. Attached to counsel’s letter was
    the juvenile court’s order. Although Royal did not specifically request that we
    do so, we take judicial notice on our own motion of the March 30, 2021 order
    terminating Royal’s probation and vacating his wardship. (Evid. Code, § 452,
    subd. (d).)
    DISCUSSION
    “[A] case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect
    or cannot provide the parties with effective relief.” (Lincoln Place Tenants
    Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 
    155 Cal.App.4th 425
    , 454.) “ ‘It is well
    settled that an appellate court will decide only actual controversies and that
    a live appeal may be rendered moot by events occurring after the notice of
    appeal was filed. We will not render opinions on moot questions . . . .’ ”
    (Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach (2012) 
    203 Cal.App.4th 852
    , 866.)
    There are exceptions to the mootness doctrine which allow a reviewing
    court to exercise its discretion to consider the issues raised on appeal. One
    exception is where a case poses an issue of broad public interest that is likely
    to recur while evading appellate review. (In re M.R. (2013) 
    220 Cal.App.4th 3
    49, 56.) Another exception is where a juvenile seeks to clear his or her name
    by objecting to the jurisdictional findings that made him or her a ward of the
    juvenile court. (In re Dana J. (1972) 
    26 Cal.App.3d 768
    , 771.)
    Royal does not argue that his case involves an issue of broad public
    interest that is likely to recur while evading appellate review. Nor could he
    successfully do so. The alleged error Royal asserts on appeal involves a fact-
    specific issue related only to his case, and there is no likelihood the issue will
    recur.
    Instead, Royal argues his successful completion of probation does not
    render his appeal moot because he has the right “to ‘clear his name’ of a
    criminal charge” and “to get rid of ‘the stigma of criminality’ . . . .” (In re
    Dana J., supra, 26 Cal.App.3d at p. 771.) He argues that the probation gang
    conditions cause a stigma because he may be labeled a gang member if he has
    further criminal conduct.2
    In re Dana J. is inapposite because there the appellant was challenging
    the jurisdictional finding that made him a ward of the court. (In re Dana J.,
    supra, 26 Cal.App.3d at p. 771.) Here, in contrast, Royal does not challenge
    the jurisdictional findings that resulted in his wardship under section 602.
    Rather, he challenges one aspect of the punishment imposed on him after
    repeated probation violations. Because he has successfully completed
    probation, we cannot provide effective relief even if we were to find reversible
    error. (Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 155
    Cal.App.4th at p. 454.)
    We note that, pursuant to sections 786 and 787, the juvenile court’s
    2
    March 30, 2021 order dismissed the petition, deemed the arrest upon which
    the petition was based not to have occurred and ordered the records sealed.
    4
    DISPOSITION
    The appeal is dismissed.
    5
    _________________________
    Jackson, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    _________________________
    Fujisaki, Acting P. J.
    _________________________
    Wiseman, J.*
    A160373/People v. Royal H.
    *Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate
    District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
    California Constitution.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A160373

Filed Date: 5/19/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/19/2021