People v. Ellis CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. MH108867
- Trial judge
- Peter L. Gallagher
- Outcome
- dismissed — Appeal dismissed.
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court found the defendant incompetent to stand trial and committed her to a state hospital with authorization for involuntary psychotropic medication. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the defendant was later found competent and criminal proceedings were reinstated, and the court declined to exercise its discretion to review the moot constitutional issue.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Dismissal of appeal as moot“Where a court ruling will have no practical effect or where the court cannot provide any relief to the parties, such case has become moot. Thus in a case which has become moot pending appeal, the appeal may be dismissed.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court correctly applied the mootness doctrine, noting that the defendant's restoration to competence and reinstatement of criminal proceedings rendered the commitment order ineffective. The court also properly declined to invoke the 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception, citing the defendant's failure to object in the trial court or seek immediate writ relief, which supports the conclusion that direct appeal was not the only or necessary avenue for review at that time. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482 — An appeal may be dismissed if the case has become moot pending appeal because the court cannot provide relief.
- relied: People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742 — An appeal from a commitment order is moot if the defendant is found able to stand trial and criminal proceedings are reinstated.
- relied: People v. Christiana (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1040 — An order authorizing involuntary administration of psychotropic medication is appealable.
- relied: Carter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 992 — A defendant may seek writ review if direct appeal is not an adequate remedy for an important constitutional issue.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the mootness doctrine and provides a clear rationale for declining to exercise discretion to review the moot issue, specifically pointing to the lack of trial court objections and the availability of writ review as alternative remedies. The reasoning is supported by cited authorities and addresses the appellant's argument regarding evading review.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionFollowing a Penal Code section 1368 proceeding, the trial court found Ellis incompetent to stand trial, committed her to Patton State Hospital for up to three years, and authorized involuntary administration of psychotropic medication; defense counsel did not object. On appeal, after the trial court found Ellis competent and reinstated criminal proceedings, the Court of Appeal granted judicial notice of the restoration order, declined to exercise its discretion to reach the conceded-moot constitutional challenge, and dismissed the appeal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order committing Ellis to Patton State Hospital as incompetent to stand trial and authorizing involuntary administration of psychotropic medication“Ellis agrees the case is moot, in that there is no relief this court can grant her by way of appeal.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court never reviewed the merits of the medication order. It treated the appeal as moot because competency had been restored and criminal proceedings reinstated, consistent with DeLong and Lindsey, and it declined to invoke the recurring-issue exception because Ellis neither objected below nor sought a stay or writ relief (Carter), so the record was undeveloped and an alternative avenue of review existed. Deciding whether to reach a moot question is within the reviewing court's discretion, and the reasons given are legitimate; nothing in the opinion shows a misapplication of law. I therefore agree with the dismissal, though the opinion does not independently assess the medication order's lawfulness. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482 — An appeal that has become moot pending appeal, where the court can grant no effective relief, may be dismissed, though the court has discretion to reach recurring issues that evade review.
- relied: People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742 — An appeal from an incompetency commitment is moot and subject to dismissal once the defendant has been found competent and criminal proceedings have been reinstated.
- relied: People v. Christiana (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1040 — An order committing a defendant as incompetent to stand trial and authorizing involuntary medication is an appealable order.
- relied: Carter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 992 — Where direct appeal is not an adequate remedy to address an involuntary medication order, a defendant may seek immediate writ review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly identified the case as moot under DeLong and Lindsey once competency was restored, and it gave principled reasons—no objection below, no stay sought, writ review available under Carter—for declining the discretionary recurring-issue exception. The opinion is brief but addresses the only argument Ellis raised and cites apposite California authority for each step.
Opinion
Filed 8/8/14 P. v. Ellis CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D064605
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. MH108867)
TAMMY ROSHYN ELLIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter L.
Gallagher, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Laurel M. Nelson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Collette C. Cavalier, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On August 14, 2013, following a proceeding under Penal Code section 1368, the court found Tammy Roshyn Ellis incompetent to stand trial and committed her to Patton State Hospital for a period not to exceed three years. The commitment order authorized involuntary administration of psychotropic medication.
On September 10, 2013, Ellis filed a notice of appeal.
Ellis appeals contending the court acted unlawfully in authorizing involuntary administration of psychotropic medication. The People have responded in their brief on the merits and in a separate motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The parties agree that on December 27, 2013, the trial court found Ellis to be competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal proceedings.1 Ellis agrees the case is moot, in that there is no relief this court can grant her by way of appeal. She contends, however, that this appeal raises issues of constitutional proportion and that such issues may otherwise evade appeal. We will dismiss the appeal.
DISCUSSION
Where a court ruling will have no practical effect or where the court cannot provide any relief to the parties, such case has become moot. Thus in a case which has become moot pending appeal, the appeal may be dismissed. (People v. DeLong (2002)
101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486. In People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742, 744, the court dismissed an appeal where the defendant, who had been committed to the state hospital, had been found able to stand trial and criminal proceedings had been reinstated.
Ellis argues that issues involving involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication may evade appellate review because persons such as Ellis may recover their 1 We grant the People's request to take judicial notice of the superior court minute order dated December 27, 2013. 2 competence before the appeal is resolved. We recognize the court may exercise discretion to review a moot case where the issue is of a recurring nature which might otherwise evade review. However, this is not the case for the exercise of such discretion.
In this case there was no objection in the trial court to the order for involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. Defense counsel stipulated to the doctor's qualifications and submitted the case without argument or objection. Quite understandably, there was no request to stay the order pending appeal.
While the order in this case is appealable (People v. Christiana (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1046-1047), that does not mean direct appeal is the only method available to review an important constitutional issue. If in fact appeal is not an adequate remedy, a defendant can seek writ review. (Carter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 992, 996-999.)
In this case Ellis did not seek any remedy to immediately address what she now contends was a gross abuse of her constitutional rights. Indeed, as we have noted, she did not object or request any relief from such order in the trial court.
There may well be circumstances where it would be appropriate to address important issues in cases where the controversy has become moot. This is not such a case.
3 DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Christiana No. E048681 · 2010-12-10
- Carter v. Superior Court B182641 · 2006-07-27
- People v. Delong B152019 · 2002-08-22
- People v. Lindsey Crim. 20553 · 1971-10-21