In re Michael L. CA4/3

Filed 3/16/16 In re Michael L. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re MICHAEL L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, G050960 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DL049792) v. OPINION MICHAEL L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Dismissed as moot. Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Kristen A. Hernandez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

On July 24, 2014, the Orange County District Attorney filed a petition alleging Michael possessed brass knuckles on March 26, 2014, in violation of Penal Code section 21810. Michael subsequently filed a petition to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 700.1. The juvenile trial court denied the petition. Pursuant to a disposition agreement, Michael admitted the allegations and was declared a ward of the juvenile court. The juvenile court designated the charge a misdemeanor, ordered supervised probation for six months and told Michael that if he complied with probation conditions, the plea would be withdrawn and the case dismissed. Michael then filed the instant appeal, raising only the legality of the search. On the morning of November 24, 2015, the date of oral argument before this court, we were advised by respondent that the case had been sealed and dismissed by the juvenile court. Later that day, we received a copy of the minute order from the juvenile court, dated October 27, nearly a month earlier, stating Michael’s motion to withdraw his plea was granted and all proceedings were terminated. The record was further ordered sealed as to all agencies. “‘A case is moot when any ruling by this court can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘[A] matter is considered moot if, as a result of changed circumstances, its determination by declaratory relief will no longer significantly affect the legal relations of the parties. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘“[A]n action which originally was based upon a justifiable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events. . . .” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Carson Citizens for Reform v. Kawagoe (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 357, 364.) Moreover, this case is not a matter of continuing public importance or interest, nor is it likely to recur yet evade review. (People v. Verduzco (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1418; In re Kerry K. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1, 4.)