People v. Gutierrez CA5

California Court of Appeal Nov 18, 2025 No. F089019Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the appellant's term of mandatory supervision had expired, and the appellant failed to demonstrate that the sentencing challenge would result in concrete, non-speculative collateral consequences.

Issues

Whether an appeal challenging the duration of a mandatory supervision term is moot after the term has expired.
Whether a finding of a mandatory supervision violation constitutes a disadvantageous collateral consequence sufficient to avoid mootness.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we dismiss the appeal as moot.”

“Where a defendant has completed a sentence, their claims of error as to that sentence are moot “because a reviewing court’s resolution of the issues could offer no relief regarding the time he spent [on mandatory supervision or] in custody.””

“a mandatory supervision violation “does not constitute a disadvantageous collateral consequence for purposes of assessing mootness.””

Filed 11/18/25 P. v. Gutierrez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F089019 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF167465A) v.

JOSE ANGEL GUTIERREZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David Wolf, Judge. Jose Angel Gutierrez, in pro. per.; and Douglas C. Foster, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda D. Cary, Darren K. Indermill, and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Snauffer, J. and Fain, J.† † Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Jose Angel Gutierrez appeals from the sentence imposed after he pleaded no contest to the charges of transportation or sale of methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine for sale. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), requesting this court independently review the record. Appellant then submitted a separate supplemental letter brief raising a single issue he wishes to have reviewed. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal as moot. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2018, appellant was charged with transportation or sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; counts 2, 5), driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a); count 3), possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 4), and maintaining a place to sell methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366; count 6). It was also alleged that appellant served prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) as to counts 1, 2, 5, and 6 and committed a felony offense while released from custody pending trial (Pen. Code, § 12022.1) as to counts 5 and 6. Appellant eventually pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 5 as part of a plea agreement in which he agreed to a five-year sentence comprised of two years in custody and the remainder to be served on mandatory supervision in exchange for the dismissal of the remainder of the charges and all allegations.1 The trial court later sentenced appellant to an aggregate split term of four years eight months and ordered him to serve the first

People v. Gutierrez CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief