Abarca v. Superior Court CA2/8

Filed 11/9/21 Abarca v. Superior Court CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

JESUS ABARCA, B308902

Petitioner, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. ZM060383, MA079872) v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

Respondent;

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Laura Streimer, Commissioner. Dismissed.

Ricardo D. Garcia, Public Defender of Los Angeles County, Albert J. Menaster, Michael Salmaggi, and Lara Kislinger, Deputy Public Defenders for Defendant and Petitioner.

Clyde & Co US and Douglas J. Collodel for Respondent. No appearance for Real Party in Interest. ________________________

On November 18, 2020, petitioner Jesus Abarca filed a petition for writ of mandate presenting one issue: “Does a defendant in a competency proceeding have a right to be personally present?” Petitioner alleged he was deprived of his right to be present at competency proceedings in his criminal special circumstances case when he was able to participate, if at all, only by video from the Los Angeles County Jail. Petitioner further alleged that in refusing to permit him to appear in person at the mental health courthouse, neither the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department nor Respondent Los Angeles Superior Court claimed he could not be safely transported and accommodated in person at his court proceedings. Petitioner asks the court to issue a writ of mandate directing the superior court to order petitioner transported to court for all future court dates during his competency proceedings, unless counsel advises that his appearance can be waived. Having been advised by respondent court that petitioner has now been and is being transported to court for his court hearings, we discharge the order to show cause and dismiss the petition as moot.