The People v. Aguilera CA5

Filed 8/27/13 P. v. Aguilera CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F066559

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12M0020)

ANDRES AGUILERA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. John G. O’Rourke, Judge. (Ret. Judge of the Kings Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Paul Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Detjen, J.

Appellant Andres Aguilera was found not competent to stand trial by the Kings County Superior Court pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1368, and criminal proceedings were suspended in 2012. He filed the instant appeal in which he challenged the length of his commitment and the sufficiency of the evidence to support a medication order. During the pendency of this appeal, appellate counsel informed us that appellant has since been found competent and criminal proceedings were reinstated. He thereafter entered a plea, admitting to a violation of section 4501.1 (prisoner assault on a nonprisoner), and was sentenced to a prison term on June 28, 2013. Given the current status of this case, we will dismiss this appeal as moot and affirm the judgment. DISCUSSION As a general rule, an appellate court only decides actual controversies. It is not the function of the appellate court to render opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it. A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.) Thus, an 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; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404.) People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742 (Lindsey) supports a mootness determination here. In that case, the superior court determined after a hearing that a criminal defendant was insane and ordered him committed to a state hospital. The