Stewart v. Superior Court CA2/1

Filed 10/31/22 Stewart v. Superior Court CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

MYLES STEWART, B317959

Petitioner, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA0888741) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate; Gregory A. Dohi, Judge. Petition dismissed. Ricardo D. Garcia, Public Defender, Albert J. Menaster, Head Deputy Public Defender, Jacob Kachatryan and Nick Stewart-Oaten, Deputy Public Defenders for Petitioner Myles Stewart.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnson, David E. Madeo, David Glassman and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorneys General for Real Party in Interest. No appearance for Respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County. ____________________

I. On October 10, 2019, petitioner Myles Stewart pleaded no contest to first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The superior court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for five years, subject to certain conditions. In January 2022, after the Legislature amended Penal Code section 1203.1 to limit, generally, felony probation terms to two years, Stewart made a motion in the superior court to terminate his probation. The court denied the motion, and Stewart sought review before us by petition for writ of mandate. We issued an order to show cause. Meanwhile, on May 31, 2022, the superior court issued an order reducing Stewart’s probation to three years. On October 10, 2022—the third anniversary of the order placing Stewart on probation—the court terminated Stewart’s probation, stating that it had been “successfully completed.” On October 20, 2022, we informed the parties that we were considering: (1) taking judicial notice of the facts that the superior court had reduced Stewart’s probation to three years and thereafter terminated probation; and (2) dismissing the petitioner’s petition on the ground that this case is moot. We