People v. Speegle CA3

Filed 5/20/21 P. v. Speegle CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C080074

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF201021632)

v.

BRANDON ALEXANDER SPEEGLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

In the guilt phase of defendant’s trial, a jury found defendant guilty of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle without the consent of the owner. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) In the sanity phase, a different jury found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial court ordered defendant committed to the Napa State Hospital for a period of seven years, less time served.

1

Less than three years later, defendant filed a petition pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.2 for transfer to outpatient treatment.1 After a hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s petition. Defendant appealed, asserting that substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s determination, and therefore that determination should be reversed, his petition granted, and he should be discharged to a conditional release program (CONREP). After briefing was initially completed, defendant was released to outpatient treatment under the supervision of CONREP in April 2019. Upon learning of this development, we requested supplemental briefing as to whether defendant’s appeal had been rendered moot by his release to outpatient treatment. The Attorney General asserted defendant’s appeal indeed had been rendered moot. Defendant agreed, as do we. We dismiss defendant’s appeal as moot. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In an information filed May 24, 2010, defendant was charged with unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle without the consent of the owner (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Count 1). The information further contained enhancement allegations alleging defendant had a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and that he had a prison commitment prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. At the guilt phase, a jury found defendant guilty of count 1, unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle without the consent of the owner. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) The trial court subsequently found the two enhancement allegations to be true. In the sanity phase, a first jury deadlocked on the issue and the trial court declared a mistrial. A second jury found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial