People v. Rios CA3

Filed 9/15/20 P. v. Rios CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C089642

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62155609)

v.

ARMANDO DAVID RIOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Armando David Rios challenges an order revoking mandatory supervision. He has already completed his custodial time, so any ruling we could make can have no practical effect and cannot provide him with effective relief. We therefore dismiss his appeal as moot, pursuant to Spencer v. Kemna (1998) 523 U.S. 1, 12-14 (Spencer) and People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 645-646 (DeLeon). I. BACKGROUND In February 2016, defendant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted a prior conviction for the same

1

offense (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced him to 16 months, plus an additional three years for the prior offense enhancement. Defendant was ordered to serve a split sentence of one year eight months in county jail and the remaining two years eight months on mandatory supervision. In December 2017, the Placer County Probation Department filed a petition to revoke mandatory supervision. In February 2018, defendant admitted violating the terms of his mandatory supervision, and the court ordered him to serve an additional 120 days in county jail. In July 2018, the probation department filed a second petition to revoke mandatory supervision, alleging, in part, that defendant failed to report to the probation department as directed, and changed his residence without providing the department advance notice.1 On May 22, 2019, after an evidentiary hearing, the court found defendant violated the terms of his mandatory supervision. The court revoked mandatory supervision and ordered defendant to serve the remainder of his split sentence (363 days) in county jail. Defendant was awarded 68 days of custody credit. II. DISCUSSION Defendant contends the admission of hearsay at the evidentiary hearing violated his right to due process. The People counter that his claims are moot because he has served his entire jail term, and reversing the court’s order would have no practical effect.2 They also contend that any error in admitting the hearsay statements was harmless.