People v. Henderson CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077216 · 2020-10-21 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF002810
Trial judge: Christopher J. Plourd
Outcome: dismissed — Appeal dismissed as moot; the case remanded with directions.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Patricia D. Benke, Patricia Guerrero

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:20Z · confidence high

The trial court issued a criminal protective order (CPO) that expired by its own terms when the defendant's probation was revoked, but failed to file the required Judicial Council form to remove the order from the law enforcement database. The Court of Appeal dismissed the constitutional challenge to the CPO's language as moot but remanded the case with directions to file the form to remove the defunct order from CLETS.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Constitutional challenge to the scope/language of the expired CPO “we find the challenge to the scope of the order and any impact it might have on Henderson’s right of free association has been rendered moot. The order no longer applies to Henderson and our examination of the specific language of the expired order would provide no relief to him.”	mixed	correct	agree with court The court correctly applied the mootness doctrine, noting that the order expired by its own terms before the appeal was perfected, rendering any challenge to its validity incapable of providing relief. The reliance on People v. Travis supports the principle that courts do not issue advisory opinions on expired orders.
Remand with directions to file JCC Form CR-165 to remove CPO from CLETS “The court must file the appropriate form to remove the CPO from CLETS.”	mixed	correct	agree with court The court identified a practical administrative issue where the defunct order remained in the CLETS database, potentially leading to unauthorized enforcement. By directing the filing of the specific Judicial Council form, the court provided a direct and simple solution to ensure the database reflects the current legal status of the order.

Authorities

relied: People v. Travis (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1271 — Courts decline to issue advisory opinions on the validity of expired orders where no relief can be provided.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound, correctly identifying the mootness of the constitutional claim due to the expiration of the order. It also appropriately addresses the administrative necessity of updating the CLETS database to prevent confusion or unauthorized enforcement, providing a clear directive for the lower court.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The Imperial County Superior Court, after Henderson pleaded no contest to corporal injury to a significant other, issued a no-contact criminal protective order and placed him on formal probation, later revoking probation and sentencing him to two years in prison after he committed arson in another case. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the overbreadth challenge to the protective order was moot because the order expired by its own terms when probation was revoked, dismissed the appeal, and remanded with directions that the superior court file Judicial Council form CR-165 so the defunct order is removed from CLETS.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Issuance of a no-contact criminal protective order challenged on appeal as overbroad and infringing the right of free association “We decline to issue an advisory opinion on the validity of an expired order.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court did not review the merits; it found the challenge moot because the parties agreed the CPO terminated when probation was revoked in March 2020, so no effective relief could be granted on the language of the order. Mootness is a threshold question and the court's reliance on Travis for the no-effective-relief principle is appropriate. The opinion does not expressly discuss discretionary exceptions to mootness (e.g., issues of continuing public interest), but nothing in the record suggests such an exception compelled review, and the one lingering collateral consequence (the CLETS entry) was addressed separately.
Superior court's failure to notify the Judicial Council of the CPO's termination so the order would be removed from the CLETS database “We see no reason to leave the defunct order on the database where it might result in unauthorized enforcement efforts.”	unclear	error (procedure)	agree with court Both parties agreed the order was entered into CLETS via a Judicial Council form and that the order itself requires termination to be reported on the appropriate form. Leaving an expired order in the law enforcement database creates a concrete risk of unauthorized enforcement, which is a live collateral consequence even though the underlying order has expired. The directive to file JCC Form CR-165 is a practical and modest remedy that follows from the order's own terms; the People's argument that users could infer invalidity from the order's language does not answer the risk the court identified.

Authorities

relied: People v. Travis (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1271 — An appellate challenge is moot where the order at issue no longer applies to the appellant and a decision on its validity would afford no effective relief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly treated the overbreadth challenge as moot once the CPO expired with the revocation of probation, cited apt authority for the no-effective-relief principle, and sensibly remedied the one remaining collateral consequence by directing the superior court to file the form needed to clear the order from CLETS. It did not, however, expressly consider whether any discretionary exception to mootness applied before declining to reach the constitutional question, which leaves a small gap in an otherwise defensible disposition.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Opinion

Filed 10/21/20 P. v. Henderson 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, D077216

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF002810)

AUSTIN DEAN HENDERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County Christopher J. Plourd, Judge. Appeal dismissed as moot; the case remanded with directions. Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Heather B. Arambarri, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal challenges an expired criminal protective order (CPO) as overbroad. It also urges this court to direct the superior court to notify the Judicial Council of California of the termination of the order by filing the appropriate Judicial Council form (JCC Form CR-165). We will find the constitutional challenge to the language of the CPO has been rendered moot because the order expired of its own terms before this appeal was perfected. It does appear, however, the court must file the appropriate Judicial Council form so that the order is removed from the law enforcement database known as the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). Accordingly, we will direct the court to file the JCC Form CR-165 in order to remove the now-defunct CPO from the database. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2019, Austin Dean Henderson pleaded no contest to corporal injury to a significant other (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). In December 2019, the court issued the challenged no contact CPO and placed Henderson on formal probation. In March 2020, the court revoked Henderson’s probation in this case in light of his commission of arson in another case. Henderson was sentenced to prison for two years. The record does not reflect a formal termination of the protective order; however, by its own terms, it expired when Henderson was no longer on probation. Henderson filed his notice of appeal before his probation was revoked. He has not separately appealed from the probation revocation and subsequent prison sentence. DISCUSSION The parties do not dispute the fact that the CPO terminated under its own terms in March 2020, when probation was revoked. Thus, we find the challenge to the scope of the order and any impact it might have on Henderson’s right of free association has been rendered moot. The order no longer applies to Henderson and our examination of the specific language of 2 the expired order would provide no relief to him. (People v. Travis (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1271, 1280.) We decline to issue an advisory opinion on the validity of an expired order. Henderson claims, and the People do not disagree, that the order was placed into the CLETS system by use of a Judicial Council form. The order makes clear termination of such orders need to be reported to the Judicial Council on the appropriate form. Otherwise, law enforcement users will continue to believe there is an outstanding CPO. The People dismiss this concern by arguing the order is no longer valid and users could essentially discern that from the language of the order and the fact that Henderson is not on probation. We see no reason to leave the defunct order on the database where it might result in unauthorized enforcement efforts. There is a direct and simple solution. The court must file the appropriate form to remove the CPO from CLETS. DISPOSITION The appeal challenging the language of the CPO is dismissed as moot. The case is remanded to the Imperial County Superior Court with directions 3 to notify the Judicial Council of California of the termination of the CPO by filing the appropriate form.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

GUERRERO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Travis A109342 · 2006-05-26