People v. Young CA4/2
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FELSS1402300
- Trial judge
- Lorenzo R. Balderrama
- Outcome
- dismissed — Dismissed.
- Area
- criminal
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
Filed 6/22/15 P. v. Young CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E061654 v. (Super.Ct.No. FELSS1402300)
KENYATTA YOUNG, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lorenzo R.
Balderrama, Judge. Dismissed.
Brent Riggs, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton, Seth Friedman and Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On May 24, 2013, appellant and defendant Kenyatta Young was found to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO) by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) under the 1 criteria of Penal Code section 2962. Defendant’s petition filed in the San Bernardino County Superior Court pursuant to Penal Code section 2966, subdivision (b), contesting the initial determination, was denied and she appealed in case No. E060765. After the appeal was filed, defendant’s initial commitment was extended for an additional year.
Defendant filed the instant appeal contesting the second commitment on the grounds that the initial commitment as an MDO was improper. On June 12, 2015, we were notified by appellate counsel that defendant had been released from involuntary commitment. In our tentative opinion in case No. E060765, we concluded that since defendant’s involuntary commitment had expired, her appeal was moot. (Case No. E060765.) We similarly find defendant’s claims in this appeal are moot and dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
We dismiss the appeal on the grounds that it has been rendered moot.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
KING J.