Filed 1/23/20 P. v. Allison 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARON ALLISON,

Defendant and Appellant.

F077900

(Super. Ct. No. CR-18-000644)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Shawn D. Bessey, Judge.

Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Dina Petrushenko, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION

Charges were filed against appellant Maron Allison on May 10, 2018. On August 17, 2018, the trial court ordered Allison committed to a state hospital pursuant to Penal Code section 1370 and authorized the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication. On November 26, 2018, criminal proceedings were reinstated and Allison entered a plea pursuant to a plea agreement.

Allison challenges the trial court’s order authorizing the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support such an order and alternatively, defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Allison was observed “fondling his penis” in a public place. On May 10, 2018, the Stanislaus County District Attorney charged Allison with two felony counts of indecent exposure, in violation of section 314, subdivision (1). The complaint also alleged that Allison had served two prior prison terms.

On May 16, 2018, criminal proceedings were suspended pursuant to section 1368. A clinical psychologist evaluated Allison and submitted a report concluding that “Psychotropic medications are necessary to restore the defendant to trial competence.” The report also stated that Allison “should be examined by a psychiatrist to assess the medical appropriateness of psychotropic medications.”

At a June 27, 2018 hearing, both defense counsel and the People submitted on the basis of the report. The trial court found Allison was incompetent to stand trial, suspended criminal proceedings, and referred the matter to the conditional release program for a determination of whether Allison should be treated in a state hospital.

The conditional release program submitted its report on August 16, 2018, recommending treatment in a state hospital. At an August 17, 2018 hearing, defense counsel and the People submitted on the recommendation. The trial court ordered Allison committed to the State Department of State Hospitals and authorized the “involuntary administration of psychotropic medication as prescribed by a licensed medical doctor.”

At a hearing on November 26, 2018, the trial court stated it had received a report from the State Department of State Hospitals with a “Certificate of Rehabilitation” asserting that Allison now was able to “understand the nature of the proceedings against him and assist Counsel.” Based on the report, the trial court found Allison competent and reinstated criminal proceedings.

Also on November 26, 2018, Allison entered into a plea agreement. Allison pled no contest to both charges in exchange for dismissal of the prior prison term allegations and a stipulated term of three years for each count, to be served concurrently. Allison entered his pleas and the prior prison term allegations were dismissed in accordance with the plea agreement.

Allison was sentenced on January 7, 2019, in accordance with the plea agreement, to three years in state prison on each count, to run concurrently.

Allison filed a notice of appeal on August 1, 2018. By order dated May 28, 2019, this court granted Allison’s application to construe the notice of appeal as an appeal from the commitment order.

DISCUSSION

Allison contends the trial court’s commitment order providing for the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication is not supported by substantial evidence. He also contends defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the order. The People contend the matter is moot, as the commitment order has expired. Allison asserts the matter is not moot, despite the expiration of the commitment order, because it is likely to impact him in future proceedings and a similar issue could be raised in other mental health cases.

The People dispute these arguments and submit the appeal must be dismissed as moot when the order under review expires. We agree with the People.

Standard of Review

A competent adult has a common law and constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, including the administration of antipsychotic drugs. (In re Qawi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1, 14.) However, an involuntarily committed patient may be forcibly treated with antipsychotic medication if a court has determined that he or she is not competent to refuse treatment. (Id. at pp. 15–16; In re Calhoun (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1354.) A judicial determination of competency to refuse treatment involves consideration of three primary factors: (1) whether the patient is aware of his or her situation and acknowledges the existence of his or her condition; (2) whether he or she is able to understand the benefits and risks of, and alternatives to, treatment; and (3) whether he or she is able to understand and intelligently evaluate the information required to be given to patients whose informed consent is sought, and to participate in the treatment decision by rational thought processes. (Riese v. St. Mary’s Hospital & Medical Center (1987) 209 Cal.App.3d 1303, 1322–1323.)

The trial court must determine competence to refuse treatment by clear and convincing evidence, “so clear as to leave no substantial doubt, [and] sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.” (Conservatorship of Waltz (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 722, 733 & fn. 14.) An order authorizing involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication is reviewed for substantial evidence. (People v. Fisher (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.)

 

Analysis

As a general rule, appellate review is limited to actual controversies; a case that involves “ ‘only abstract or academic questions of law cannot be maintained. [Citation.]’ ” (People v. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486.) “ ‘ “[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.]’ ” (Ibid.) In other words, “[a]n appeal should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief.” (Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479 (Cucamongans).) Here, since the order appealed from has expired, and resolving the issues presented would not confer any effective relief to Allison, the matter is moot.

There are three discretionary exceptions to the rule against adjudicating moot claims. A reviewing court may decide an appeal on the merits “(1) when the case presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur [citation]; (2) when there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties [citation]; and (3) when a material question remains for the court’s determination [citation].” (Cucamongans, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp. 479–480.)

We are aware of our discretionary authority but decline to exercise it under the circumstances of this case. We will not presume, as Allison essentially asks us to do, that because evidentiary errors allegedly occurred in the current proceeding, they are likely to recur in the future. Furthermore, a challenge to any future involuntary medication order by Allison or any other defendant is not likely to escape review. In the event of a future involuntary medication order, Allison or any other defendant can seek a stay of the involuntary medication order, seek expedited briefing, file a motion for calendar preference, or file a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition. (See Carter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 992, 998–999; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.240.)

Nor is there a broad public interest for this court to consider. Once a defendant is restored to competence, there is no collateral consequence or stigma that affects the defendant in future proceedings. In any future determination of competency, the trial court will be required to follow section 1370; enforce the restrictions on admissibility of hearsay evidence set forth in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665; and comply with the constitutional restrictions on ordering the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication as established in Sell v. United States (2003) 539 U.S. 166.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot.