People v. G.A. CA1/3

Filed 9/29/22 P. v. G.A. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162897 v. JUAN G.A., (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. MCUK-CRCR-10-10581- Defendant and Appellant. 002)

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 Juan G.A.2 appeals from an order extending his commitment under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500 et seq.,3 which permits the involuntary commitment of persons who have a developmental disability and pose a danger to themselves or others. (§§ 6500, subd. (b)(1), 6509, subd. (a).) He contends (1) the trial court wrongly based its finding of dangerousness on

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1, insofar as there is no substantial issue of law or fact with regard to whether this appeal is moot, which is the basis for our disposition in this matter. 2 Pursuant to the California Rules of Court, rule 8.90, governing “Privacy in opinions,” we will refer to defendant by his first name and last initials. 3 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

criminal charges from his 2001 and 2010 cases; (2) the court improperly admitted case-specific hearsay in violation of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez); (3) the court improperly considered hearsay in judicially noticed documents; and (4) cumulative prejudice warrants reversal. The People argue the appeal should be dismissed as moot because the order extending the commitment in this case has expired. We agree with the People that the appeal is moot. “Commitments under section 6500 are for a one-year period. Where the appellate decision is rendered beyond that period, the appeal is technically moot.” (People v. Quinn (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1293; § 6500, subd. (b)(1)(A)–(B).) Here, the commitment extension order appealed from expired on August 25, 2021, over a year ago. Hence, this appeal is moot. Juan G.A. urges this court to consider the merits of this appeal, because there is a likelihood that a similar controversy between the parties will recur. (Bullis Charter School v. Los Altos School Dist. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1034.) But, in this particular case, given the length of time since the expiration of the commitment order at issue, and our inability to provide any meaningful relief to Juan G.A., we decline to do so. Though we could end here, we take this opportunity to offer some guidance to the parties and the trial court, as well as to flag an issue, in the event of future commitment proceedings. First, section 6500 specifically contemplates that the filing of certain criminal charges against a defendant is relevant to the determination of whether that person is dangerous. While a finding of dangerousness cannot be based on criminal charges alone, and the statute implicitly requires evidence of current dangerousness (In re O.P. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 924,