People v. Best CA2/4
Filed 8/23/24 P. v. Best CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B330811
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 3PB02445) v.
KIRAN BEST,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jeffrey S. Cohen-Laurie, Judge. Dismissed. C. Matthew Missakian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan J. Kline and Charles Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Kiran Best was placed on postrelease community supervision (PRCS)1 after serving his time for a felony offense in state prison. On appeal, defendant challenges the court’s denial of his request to modify terms of his PRCS. The Attorney General contends the appeal is moot because defendant is no longer on PRCS. We agree and decline to exercise our discretion to reach the merits. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2018, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to felony assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The trial court sentenced him to 364 days in jail and five years’ probation. In December 2021, the court found defendant had violated his probation and sentenced him to three years in state prison. After defendant was released from prison, he was placed on PRCS under the supervision of the Los Angeles County Probation Department (Probation Department). The Probation Department submitted a housing referral on his behalf, resulting in a placement at the Pathways Sober Living housing facility (Pathways). As a condition of his residence, defendant signed a document agreeing to forfeit his landlord-tenant rights and to reside at Pathways as a guest.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)