People v. Boyle CA5

Filed 4/14/23 P. v. Boyle CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F084686 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF188854A) v.

ELIZABETH BOYLE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Chad A. Louie, Judge. Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Elizabeth Boyle asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. We dismiss the appeal as moot. BACKGROUND On May 25, 2022, after criminal proceedings were suspended, the trial court found defendant incompetent to stand trial and ordered her committed to the State Department of State Hospitals pursuant to Penal Code section 1370.1 On July 21, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal. While this appeal was pending, however, defendant was restored to competency and, on September 15, 2022, she pled no contest to criminal threats (§ 422). The remaining charges against her were dismissed. On October 14, 2022, the trial court imposed the agreed-upon low term of 16 months, a term satisfied by defendant’s presentence custody credits, and released her on parole. DISCUSSION “ ‘ “[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Delong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486.) In the criminal context, appeal is permitted where a defendant who has completed his or her sentence has an interest in clearing his or her name, or where, as a result of the sentence, the law imposes “disadvantageous collateral consequences” on the defendant. (People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742, 744 (Lindsey); see 6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2022) Criminal Appeal, § 187.)