People v. Moss CA5

Filed 10/27/20 P. v. Moss 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F077899 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 07CM7347HTA) v.

SPENCER MOSS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Donna L. Tarter, Judge. Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Kathryn L. Althizer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Spencer Moss (defendant) appeals from an extension of his commitment, pursuant to Penal Code section 2970, as a mentally disordered offender (MDO).1 We will dismiss the appeal as moot. PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 In 2002, following his commitment to prison for conviction of a non-MDO- qualifying offense, defendant was convicted of two counts of escape by force or violence. (§ 4532, subd. (b)(2).) In 2008, he was convicted of four counts of assault by a prisoner on a nonprisoner. (§ 4501.5.) On July 2, 2014, defendant was admitted to the State Department of State Hospitals as an MDO. (§ 2962.) On February 9, 2017, the Kings County District Attorney filed a petition to extend the commitment. (§ 2970.) On June 12, 2017, following a jury trial, the petition was granted, and defendant’s commitment was extended for one year. On February 1, 2018, the Kings County District Attorney filed a petition to extend the commitment. (§ 2970.) Defendant subsequently waived his right to a jury trial. On July 23, 2018, following a court trial, the petition was granted, and defendant’s commitment was extended for one year. Defendant appealed from this extension, which is the subject of the appeal currently before us. DISCUSSION At trial, the People called defendant as their first witness. Neither defendant nor defense counsel objected, and defendant testified as requested. In his opening brief, defendant contended the trial court illegally allowed the People to call him as a witness; and if the issue was forfeited due to the absence of an objection, then defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. Before his appeal