People v. Samuelson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. MH109691, SCS269143
- Trial judge
- Joseph P. Brannigan
- Outcome
- dismissed — Dismissed.
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith D. McConnell, Gilbert Nares
Analysis
The trial court ordered the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to a defendant found incompetent to stand trial. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the defendant was subsequently restored to competency and released from the hospital, rendering the order no longer in effect.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order for involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication“Because she has been restored to competency and is no longer committed to Patton State Hospital, however, her challenge to the February 20, 2014, involuntary medication order is now moot.” | mixed | correct | agree with court The court correctly applied the mootness doctrine, noting that the restoration of competency terminated the commitment and the medication order, leaving no practical effect for reversal. The court also correctly declined to exercise its discretion to hear the merits because the issue did not evade review, as the defendant could have used a writ petition to challenge the time-sensitive order. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482 — An appeal must be dismissed if subsequent events render the controversy moot and a reversal would have no practical effect.
- relied: People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742 — An appeal of a commitment order becomes moot if the defendant is found competent and the commitment is terminated during the pendency of the appeal.
- relied: Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fales (1973) 8 Cal.3d 712 — A court may exercise inherent discretion to resolve a moot issue if it involves a matter of continuing public interest and is likely to recur.
- relied: People v. Christiana (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1040 — Direct appeal is a permissible path to challenge an order for involuntary medication.
- relied: Carter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 992 — A writ proceeding is a more practicable method to challenge time-sensitive medication orders and can avoid mootness.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the mootness doctrine based on the termination of the underlying commitment and properly analyzes the 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception by noting the availability of writ relief. The court's reliance on published authorities and its logical progression from mootness to the discretionary exception are legally sufficient.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter finding Lucina Samuelson incompetent to stand trial, the San Diego Superior Court committed her to Patton State Hospital and, on February 20, 2014, ordered involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication under Penal Code section 1370. On appeal from the medication order, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because Samuelson had been restored to competency and criminal proceedings reinstated while the appeal was pending, and it declined to exercise its discretion to reach the merits under the public-interest exception.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order under Penal Code section 1370 authorizing involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication during Samuelson's commitment to Patton State Hospital“Because the issue does not apparently evade review, this court declines to exercise its discretion to consider the merits of the appeal.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The court never evaluated whether the trial court complied with section 1370; it held the challenge moot under People v. Lindsey because restoration to competency terminated the commitment and left no prejudicial consequence a reversal could cure, and it declined the Liberty Mutual public-interest exception on the ground that writ review (as in Carter v. Superior Court) was available so the issue does not evade review. The mootness conclusion is defensible, but the refusal to reach the merits is a discretionary call, and the reasoning that writ availability means the issue does not evade review is thin: the court itself acknowledged direct appeal is a permissible path (Christiana), involuntary medication orders implicate a recognized Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest, and other appellate courts (e.g., People v. O'Dell) have reached the merits of such orders despite mootness precisely because competency restoration typically outruns appellate review. Because the question is one of discretion and the opinion gives no view of the underlying order, I cannot say the result is wrong, only that the public-interest analysis is underdeveloped. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482 — An appeal cannot be maintained when subsequent events have rendered all questions moot, because reversal would have no practical effect.
- relied: People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742 — A certification of restored competency terminates an incompetency commitment and leaves no prejudicial consequences remediable on appeal, so an appeal from the commitment order is moot and must be dismissed.
- relied: Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fales (1973) 8 Cal.3d 712 — A court may exercise inherent discretion to resolve an otherwise moot issue when it involves a matter of continuing public interest that is likely to recur.
- relied: People v. Christiana (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1040 — An involuntary medication order entered in incompetency proceedings is reviewable by direct appeal.
- relied: Carter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 992 — A defendant may challenge an involuntary medication order by writ petition, obtain a stay, and secure relief where the evidence is insufficient to support involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs.
- missed: People v. O'Dell (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 562 — An appellate court may reach the merits of a challenge to an involuntary medication order under section 1370 despite the defendant's restoration to competency, because the issue is of public interest and likely to recur while evading review; relevant to whether this court should have exercised its discretion rather than dismissing.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The mootness holding follows directly from Lindsey and DeLong, and the court correctly refused to rely on the depublished De La Rosa opinion. However, the court's reason for declining the public-interest exception, that the issue does not evade review because a writ was available, is conclusory and does not engage with the constitutional dimension of involuntary medication or with prior appellate decisions that reached such claims despite mootness, so the result is defensible but the analysis skips a step.
Opinion
Filed 3/11/15 P. v. Samuelson 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, D065724
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. MH109691, SCS269143) LUCINA SAMUELSON, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joseph P.
Brannigan, Judge. Dismissed.
Alfons G. Wagner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Collette C. Cavalier and Elizabeth M. Carino, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After finding Lucina Samuelson incompetent to stand trial, the trial court suspended criminal proceedings, committed Samuelson to Patton State Hospital, and ordered involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. Samuelson appealed, contending the trial court erred in ordering involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. While this appeal was pending, however, the trial court found Samuelson competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal proceedings. The People contend that because she has been released from the hospital, the appeal has become moot and must be dismissed.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 14, 2013, Samuelson allegedly stabbed her victim multiple times with scissors, while yelling "kill, kill." On December 18, the San Diego District Attorney filed a complaint charging Samuelson with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)),1 battery resulting in serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)), stalking with a court order in effect (§ 646.9, subd. (b)), vandalism over $400 (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)), possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)). On December 27, the trial court suspended criminal proceedings pursuant to section 1368, and scheduled a mental competency examination.
On February 14, 2014, the court found Samuelson incompetent to stand trial and ordered her committed to Patton State Hospital. On February 20, the court ordered the 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 hospital to administer antipsychotic medication. Samuelson appealed the order requiring involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication.
On September 29, 2014, during the pendency of the appeal, the trial court found Samuelson's mental competency restored pursuant to section 1372, and reinstated criminal proceedings. Samuelson is now in the custody of the San Diego Sheriff's Office, awaiting further proceedings.
II
DISCUSSION
Samuelson contends the trial court erred in ordering that she could be involuntarily medicated with antipsychotic drugs. Because she has been restored to competency and is no longer committed to Patton State Hospital, however, her challenge to the February 20, 2014, involuntary medication order is now moot.
" ' "[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 People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742, the trial court found the defendant incompetent to stand trial and committed him to a state hospital for care. (Id. at p. 743.)
The defendant appealed the order of commitment. (Ibid.) While the appeal was pending, however, the court received notice of the defendant's competency. (Ibid.) Emphasizing the competency certification terminated the commitment and left no prejudicial consequences that might be ameliorated by a successful appeal, the appellate court found 3 the issue had become moot and dismissed the appeal.2 (People v. Lindsey, supra, 20 Cal.App.3d at p. 744.)
Here, like in Lindsey, the competency certification terminated Samuelson's commitment and left no prejudicial consequences that might be ameliorated by a successful appeal. Her restoration to competency renders moot her challenge to the trial court's order.3 Samuelson alternatively contends that, regardless of whether the appeal is moot, this court should exercise its discretion to consider the merits because the issue raised involves a matter of public interest that is likely to recur but evades review. She identifies the error at issue to be the trial court's failure to follow the requirements of section 1370 in ordering the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication, and asserts the order invades a constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of medication under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"If an action involves a matter of continuing public interest and the issue is likely to recur, a court may exercise an inherent discretion to resolve that issue, even though an 2 Although the statute governing court proceedings to determine whether a defendant is mentally competent to stand trial has been amended since Lindsey was decided in 1971 (§ 1367 et seq.), Lindsey's analysis on the issue of mootness is equally valid under the current version of the statute.
3 The parties' appellate briefs discuss a case, decertified for publication by our Supreme Court after briefing for this appeal was complete, that disapproved of Lindsey. (People v. De La Rosa (Sept. 8, 2014, C073061) review denied and opinion ordered nonpub. Dec. 10, 2014, No. S222215.) We do not consider De La Rosa in our analysis, as it is no longer good authority. 4 event occurring during its pendency would normally render the matter moot." (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fales (1973) 8 Cal.3d 712, 715-716.) Here, Samuelson chose to oppose the order by way of direct appeal, a path that is indeed permissible. (People v. Christiana (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1045.) It may have been more practicable, however, to oppose the time-sensitive claim by way of a writ proceeding. In Carter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 992, the defendant "filed a writ petition challenging the trial court's medication order and asking that the order be stayed pending [the] decision." (Id.
at p. 998.) The appellate court stayed the order and the defendant then successfully argued the evidence was insufficient to justify involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs. (Id. at pp. 998-999.)
As in Carter, Samuelson could have avoided mootness, and possibly obtained her desired relief, by choosing to oppose the order by way of a writ proceeding. Because the issue does not apparently evade review, this court declines to exercise its discretion to consider the merits of the appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
McDONALD, J. WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
NARES, 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
- Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Fales S.F. 22914 · 1973-01-23
- People v. Lindsey Crim. 20553 · 1971-10-21