People v. Horspool CA1/1

Filed 3/25/26 P. v. Horspool CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A171515 v. (Contra Costa County STEVEN RAY HORSPOOL, Super. Ct. No. 01001378249) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Steven Ray Horspool appeals an order committing him to a state hospital that expired before briefing in this appeal concluded, rendering the appeal moot. As neither party advances a reason for us to reach the merits notwithstanding the expired order, we dismiss the appeal. I. BACKGROUND In 2008, after Horspool tried to lure an 11-year-old girl into a store bathroom for sex, he was convicted of annoying or molesting a child under 18 years of age with a prior qualifying sex crime conviction. (Pen. Code, § 647.6,

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.)

1

subd. (c).)2 The following year, he was released to Atascadero State Hospital as an offender with a mental health disorder. This state hospital commitment was extended without interruption through the entry of the order now before us. In June 2024, the People filed a petition to continue Horspool’s involuntary commitment and treatment pursuant to sections 2970 and 2972 of the Mentally Disordered Offender Act. (§ 2960 et seq., the Act.) A trial was held three months later, where the court granted the petition after finding “beyond a reasonable doubt[] that Mr. Horspool is a person who suffers from a severe mental disorder, [that] said severe mental disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without continued treatment, and because of his severe mental disorder he presently represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. (. . . Section 2970(c)).” The court also considered but denied ordering Horspool to be treated on an outpatient basis instead of through a renewed involuntary hospital commitment, concluding his lack of insight and lack of remission prevented him from being safely and effectively treated in that manner. The court committed Horspool to the State Department of State Hospitals until December 5, 2025. Horspool’s sole contention on appeal is that substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusion that he could not be treated in the community safely and effectively. In a responsive brief filed in January 2026, the Attorney General contends Horspool’s appeal is now moot because the commitment order expired on December 5, 2025. Alternatively, the Attorney General argues that the court’s decision regarding Horspool’s unreadiness for treatment in the community was supported by the evidence at trial. Horspool