People v. Denson CA3

Filed 11/5/25 P. v. Denson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yuba) ---- THE PEOPLE, C101652 & C102294

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF-23- 03066-MH2) v.

JOSEPH WILLIAM DENSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Joseph William Denson appeals after the trial court found him incompetent and committed him to the Department of State Hospitals. Appointed counsel for defendant filed an opening brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and, alternatively, Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, setting forth the facts of the case and seeking independent review of the record on appeal. For the reasons explained below, we will dismiss the appeal as moot. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2023, the People charged defendant with felony resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 69; count 1), misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a); count 2), and alleged a prior serious felony enhancement.

1

In July 2024, the trial court found defendant was not mentally competent to stand trial. In August 2024, the court committed defendant to the Department of State Hospitals. Defendant timely filed three notices of appeal, one challenging the trial court’s July 2024 competency ruling, one challenging its August 2024 commitment ruling, and one challenging the resulting commitment order and subsequent amended commitment orders filed as a result of the August 2024 commitment hearing. In October 2024, the trial court deemed defendant competent to stand trial. Defendant later pled no contest to both counts and admitted the prior serious felony enhancement. The trial court sentenced defendant to 32 months in state prison. We directed the parties to file supplemental briefs on whether this court has jurisdiction to conduct an independent review of the record for error occurring after the filing of defendant’s three notices of appeal, which challenged only the trial court’s rulings from the July 2024 competency hearing and the August 2024 commitment hearing. DISCUSSION Defendant concedes he did not appeal the trial court’s judgment. He further acknowledges this court is without jurisdiction to review matters that occurred after the three appealed orders—including the judgment. However, defendant claims his sentence is unauthorized. As such, he claims the unauthorized sentence rule is an exception that gives this court jurisdiction to correct the sentence. We conclude the appeals are moot and this court is without jurisdiction to address any matters arising from the judgment because defendant did not appeal the judgment. I Mootness “ ‘ “[A]n 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.