People v. Arcelus CA5

California Court of Appeal Feb 19, 2014 No. F066266Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the appellant had already been granted the relief he sought—placement in a Community Release Program—by the trial court during the pendency of the appeal.

Issues

Whether an appeal from the denial of a petition for outpatient release becomes moot when the trial court subsequently grants the requested placement during the pendency of the appeal.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that there is no relief we can provide Arcelus that he has not already received and dismiss this appeal as moot.”

“A case is moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief.”

“The subsequent proceeding has rendered moot the court’s earlier finding on November 2, 2012.”

Filed 2/19/14 P. v. Arcelus 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F066266 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CF06902400) v.

MICHAEL SCOTT ARCELUS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jon N. Kapetan, Judge. Paul Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Melissa Lipon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant, Michael Scott Arcelus, was charged with attempted second degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664 & 187, subd. (a))1 and assault on a person with a machine gun (§ 245, subd. (a)(3)). Arcelus was found not guilty by reason of insanity. On September 25, 2007, Arcelus was committed to the California Department of Mental Health and sent to Atascadero State Hospital. Arcelus arrived at Napa State Hospital on April 7, 2010, and since that time until a hearing for community release on November 2, 2012, remained free of psychotic symptoms. On February 3, 2012, Arcelus filed a petition for release based upon restoration of his sanity pursuant to section 1026.2. This petition was withdrawn by his counsel on February 16, 2012. In August 2012, Dr. Patricia Tyler, a psychiatrist and Medical Director of Napa State Hospital, prepared an assessment and evaluation report recommending that Arcelus be placed in a Community Release Program (CONREP), because he was no longer psychotic. In September 2012, the Central California CONREP Program Clinician, Dr. Thomas Lee, prepared a recommendation that Arcelus be placed on CONREP. On October 19, 2012, Central California CONREP filed an addendum report withdrawing its request that Arcelus be placed on CONREP. On October 19, 2012, Arcelus’s counsel appeared before the trial court, acknowledged that the local CONREP agency had withdrawn its CONREP recommendation, and made a motion “to set a contested hearing.” The court granted the motion. The evidence presented during the hearing from Dr. Patricia Tyler was that Arcelus no longer suffered from a mental illness which had been caused by drug addiction. Arcelus had been drug free since his transfer to Napa State Hospital and had not suffered from paranoia, delusions, or psychosis since May 2010. In addition to being 1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.

People v. Arcelus CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief