Filed 12/13/19 P. v. Roldan CA6

Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

NOHELY STEPHANY ROLDAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

H043767

(Monterey County

Super. Ct. No. SS141673)

Defendant Nohely Stephany Roldan was granted probation after she pleaded no contest to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). She contended that three probation conditions relating to her use of electronic devices were invalid under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, unconstitutionally overbroad, and unconstitutionally vague. We concluded that the probation conditions were unconstitutionally vague and reversed the order for further proceedings. The California Supreme Court granted review, deferred briefing, and transferred the case back to this court to vacate its decision and reconsider the cause in light of In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113. We vacated our prior decision. Having reconsidered our previous decision, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

I. Background
II.
On three occasions in 2014, defendant used a fraudulent credit card to book rooms for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. Defendant admitted that she used myredbook.com, which is an escort Web site known for promoting prostitution. A search of her cell phone revealed text messages with her pimp that corroborated her statement that she was engaged in prostitution.

After defendant entered her plea, the trial court placed her on probation for three years and imposed various probation conditions regarding social media and cell phones.

III. Discussion
IV.
Defendant has submitted supplemental briefing in which she has informed the court that she is no longer on probation and thus the appeal is moot. She further states that she is unable to find a legal basis to argue that the present case is an exception to the mootness doctrine.

“ ‘[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.’ ” (People v. Herrera (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1198.) Defendant’s sole arguments on appeal are limited to the reasonableness and constitutionality of the electronics search conditions. Since defendant is no longer on probation, we would be unable to grant her effective relief on appeal. (People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 408, fn. 8.)

“A reviewing court may exercise its inherent discretion to resolve an issue rendered moot by subsequent events if the question to be decided is of continuing public importance and is a question capable of repetition, yet evading review. [Citations.]” (People v. Alsafar (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 880, 883.) Here, since the validity of defendant’s probation conditions requires a fact-based inquiry into the circumstances of her offense and consideration of the specific language in the challenged conditions, the present appeal does not involve a question of continuing public importance. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

V. Disposition
VI.
The appeal is dismissed.

_______________________________

Mihara, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Elia, Acting P. J.

______________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

People v. Roldan

H043767