In re Alex M. CA2/6

Filed 2/25/14 In re Alex M. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re ALEX M., a Person Coming Under 2d Juv. No. B245295 the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 2011026387) (Ventura County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALEX M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Alex M. was charged in a wardship petition with three misdemeanor violations arising from his alleged misconduct while in custody at juvenile hall. The prosecution sought and the juvenile court granted dismissal of these charges, thereby permitting his transfer to county jail upon his 18th birthday. Appellant now asks us to reverse the juvenile court's order and reinstate the charges. While we acknowledge that there once may have been a reason to do so, that reason abated when appellant turned age 19 and, perhaps more importantly, when he was convicted of murder and sentenced to prison for 26 years to life. We accordingly dismiss the appeal as moot.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant was born in December 1994. He was first declared a ward of the juvenile court when he was 12 years old, and has a lengthy history of delinquency. In July 2009, he was charged by felony complaint with first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 707, subd. (d)(2)(A)) and other charges. Appellant was detained at juvenile hall pending trial. On July 26, 2011, a subsequent wardship petition was filed charging appellant with resisting or obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), making criminal threats (id. at § 422), and battery (id. at § 242). Appellant was never arraigned on the petition. On October 22, 2012, appellant's attorney notified the court that the probation department wanted to transport appellant to the county jail on his 18th birthday in December 2012, as provided in section 208.5. The matter was set for hearing on November 8, 2012. At the November 8th hearing, the court stated, "my normal course in the juvenile matter would be that . . . absent some other order, [appellant] would be housed in the juvenile facility typically until he's 19." The prosecutor then moved to dismiss the wardship petition. When the court asked if there was "any reason" why the motion should not be granted, appellant's attorney replied that a dismissal was governed by section 782 and would not be in the interests of justice or the minor's welfare. Counsel offered that because appellant was a ward of the court independent of the current petition, "[the] juvenile court has jurisdiction over [appellant] until he's 21 years of age. The Court's got the authority under [section] 208.5 to keep him." The prosecutor responded: "We cannot be forced to continue on charges that we have dismissed. . . . [B]ecause there is no longer a petition before this Court, the People would simply ask that the Court dismiss the charges and that the matter go off calendar."