California Court of Appeal Jun 17, 2021 No. E075769Unpublished
Filed 6/17/21 P. v. Pina CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E075769
v. (Super.Ct.No. BPR2000985)
JOSEPH PINA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Judith M. Fouladi,
Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Dismissed as moot.
Paul R. Kraus, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Stephanie
H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
After a contested hearing, the trial court found Joseph Pina in violation of his
parole and ordered him to serve 180 days in county jail for failing to charge his global
positioning system (GPS) monitoring device and attend required sex offender classes.
Pina challenges the court’s parole violation order, arguing there was insufficient evidence
While we agree this issue is likely to recur and evade appellate review, we do not
agree it qualifies as an issue of continuing public interest. Pina’s challenge is to the
sufficiency of the evidence only, which is necessarily a fact-specific question that will
differ from case to case. As such, any decision on the merits in this case would not alter
the law or have any larger impact on other defendants. Even if we agreed with Pina, our
decision would have no practical effect on him nor would it carry any instructional value
for lower courts. Simply put, his appeal raises no larger procedural or substantive issues
that would constitute a “continuing public interest.” (Morales, supra, 63 Cal.4th at
p. 409.)
Nevertheless, Pina argues our conclusion does not prevent us from reaching the
merits of his appeal. We find the cases he relies on for this argument unpersuasive.
4
People v. Navarro (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1294 and People v. Austin (2019) 35
Cal.App.5th 778 challenged the parole conditions themselves, not the evidence
supporting revocation. In both cases the court could offer the appellants some relief by
clarifying, modifying, or outright striking otherwise impermissible conditions. Moreover,
in Navarro the court exercised its discretion to review the moot challenge because it was
“highly probable that another inmate released on parole [would] be subject to the” same
or similar condition “and the identical issue could be raised again.” (People v. Navarro,
at p. 1298.) And Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, another case Pina cites, didn’t
concern a moot issue at all, but rather raised the broad question of whether the parole
revocation procedures afforded to all parolees satisfies due process. (Id. at pp. 484-490.)
We conclude Pina’s appeal is moot and does not raise an issue of continuing
public importance justifying review on the merits.
III
DISPOSITION
We dismiss the appeal as moot.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
SLOUGH J. We concur:
CODRINGTON Acting P. J.
FIELDS J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the defendant had already completed his jail sentence for the parole violation, and the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence did not present an issue of continuing public interest.
Issues
Whether an appeal challenging a parole revocation is moot when the defendant has already served the imposed jail term.
Whether a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for a parole violation qualifies as an issue of continuing public interest that warrants appellate review despite being moot.
Disposition. Dismissed as moot.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Because Pina has already served his time in jail for the challenged violations, we dismiss his appeal as moot.”
“We conclude Pina’s appeal is moot and does not raise an issue of continuing public importance justifying review on the merits.”