Young v. Jacop CA6

Filed 2/18/25 Young v. Jacop CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

TED ROGER YOUNG, H051685 (Monterey County Petitioner and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 23PT000062)

v.

KARI LYNN JACOP,

Respondent.

Appellant Ted Roger Young contends that a domestic violence restraining order, and specifically the order’s firearm restrictions, violate the Second Amendment. Because the order has expired, we will dismiss the appeal as moot. I. BACKGROUND Respondent requested a domestic violence restraining order against appellant in November 2022. Respondent alleged appellant verbally and emotionally abused her “every day” and had physically abused her three times. She alleged that on the most recent occasion, appellant threw ice water on her, called her a “bitch,” and said he “wanted to kill” her. Later that night, when respondent refused to have sex with him, appellant allegedly became “irate,” “blocked” respondent from “accessing” her child, and “was physically pushing and grabbing at” her. Respondent alleged she suffered “large bruises” on her arm as a result of the incident.1 Appellant filed a response denying the allegations.

1 Appellant was arrested in connection with the incident, and he asks us to take judicial notice of various documents related to the criminal proceedings. We grant the

Following a hearing, the trial court issued a domestic violence restraining order against appellant. No court reporter was present at the hearing. According to the minute order, evidence admitted at the hearing included photographs of respondent’s injuries. Exhibits were returned to the parties and have not been made part of the record on appeal. The restraining order prohibited appellant from possessing firearms and ammunition, and required him to surrender all firearms in his possession. It expired on October 30, 2024, while this appeal was pending. II. DISCUSSION Appellant seeks to challenge a “myriad of California laws mak[ing] it unlawful for any person subject to any type of protective order issued by a California state court (including [appellant’s] restraining order) to possess firearms or ammunition, or to sell or provide firearms or ammunition to the restrained person,” contending those laws are unconstitutional as applied to him. Respondent has not filed an appellate brief, and we may therefore decide the appeal based on the record and appellant’s briefing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) As of October 30, 2024, the challenged domestic violence restraining order is no longer in effect. We invited supplemental briefing as to whether the appeal is moot and, if so, whether any exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. Appellant filed a supplemental brief acknowledging that he is no longer subject to the firearm restrictions associated with the restraining order. The appeal is therefore moot. (See City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1079 [“ ‘If relief granted by the trial court is temporal, and if the relief granted expires before an appeal can be heard, then an appeal by the adverse party is moot’ ”].)