People v. Bischoff CA1/3

Filed 12/22/25 P. v. Bischoff CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172099 v. DUSTY PARKER BISCHOFF, (Contra Costa County Sup. Ct. Nos. 022400891, 022400922) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In July 2024, Dusty Parker Bischoff was charged with resisting an executive officer by means of threat and violence (Pen. Code, § 69; undesignated statutory references are to this code), threatening a public officer (§ 71), battery upon a peace officer (§ 243, subd. (b)), and violation of probation. Later that same month, he was charged with misdemeanor battery (§§ 242, 243, subd. (a)), misdemeanor criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)), and violating probation. The next month, the trial court declared a doubt regarding Bischoff’s competency to stand trial under former sections 1368 and 1370.1 — the latter

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin.,

§ 8.1), reciting only those facts necessary to do so. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) 1

provision addresses competency evaluations for people with developmental disabilities. Although the court suspected he had a developmental disability, it only appointed two doctors — but not the Regional Center of the East Bay (Regional Center), the local regional center providing services and supports for people with developmental disabilities — to evaluate him. (Former § 1369, subd. (a)(3) [requiring appointment of regional center director or designee to examine defendants suspected of having a developmental disability to determine the existence of a developmental disability and eligibility for regional center services].) Based on the evaluations, the court found him incompetent to stand trial and suspended the criminal proceedings. It noted he was a prior Regional Center client, and it referred him to that facility for a developmental disability placement examination, evaluation, and recommendation. (§ 1370.1, subd. (a)(2).) A Regional Center case manager recommended placing Bischoff at the Porterville Developmental Center, a secure treatment facility for people with developmental disabilities. Nothing in the record indicates the Regional Center personally evaluated him before making this recommendation. At a November 2024 hearing, and over Bischoff’s objection, the trial court committed him to Porterville. Bischoff appealed, arguing the trial court’s order committing him to the Porterville Developmental Center without a statutorily mandated evaluation under section 1370.1 violated his due process rights and required reversal of the order. While the appeal was pending, the trial court found him competent to stand trial. He was released from Porterville to a detention center, and the People moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. Having considered the People’s motion and Bischoff’s opposition, we agree the matter should be dismissed as moot. Appellate courts decide actual