Opinion
F086963
05-07-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT ZANE TURGEON, Defendant and Appellant.
Elaine Forrester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Rench and Warda Ali-Baloch, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. No. F23900436 Monica R. Diaz, Judge.
Elaine Forrester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Rench and Warda Ali-Baloch, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT [*]
Defendant Robert Zane Turgeon filed a notice of appeal on October 3, 2023, challenging the trial court's order committing him to a state hospital after finding defendant was not competent to stand trial. The People have now filed a motion to dismiss the appeal along with a request for judicial notice documenting events occurring in this case after defendant initiated his appeal. We grant the People's motion to dismiss defendant's appeal.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
On January 23, 2023, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a), a felony; count 1), disobeying a domestic relations court order (§ 273.6, subd. (a), a misdemeanor; count 2), and disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4), a misdemeanor; count 3). Soon thereafter, defendant entered pleas of not guilty to each count.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
During a hearing held on May 30, 2023, defense counsel raised a concern about defendant's mental competence to proceed, citing section 1368. The trial court then ordered an evaluation pursuant to section 1369 to be submitted to the court by July 7, 2023. During a hearing held on July 11, 2023, the court acknowledged receiving the report addressing defendant's mental competence. Defense counsel acknowledged receiving the report and reviewing it with defendant, then stated:
"I'm ready to submit on the contents of the report. [Defendant] does want to lodge an objection and states that he disagrees with the findings contained therein and formulated by Dr. Sherman."
After the prosecution also submitted the matter on the report, the court found defendant was "mentally incompetent to stand trial at this time." The court then ordered the preparation of a placement report and recommendation. At this same hearing, the court also issued an order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication if deemed necessary by a facility or treating physician. On August 11, 2023, the court ordered defendant be transported to a state hospital for treatment for a period of up to two years.
After filing a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel submitted an opening brief on defendant's behalf challenging the finding of incompetence and the order allowing defendant to be medicated involuntarily. On March 18, 2024, the People filed a motion to dismiss the appeal arguing it was now moot, and also filed a request for judicial notice of proceedings in the trial while this appeal was pending. On March 21, 2024, this court issued the following order:
"Appellant is granted 15 days' leave to file an informal response to respondent's' "MOTION TO DISMISS ...,"' and' "MOTION REQUESTING JUDICIAL NOTICE ...,"' filed on March 18, 2024. Failure to file an informal response may be deemed agreement that respondent's motions be granted."
Defendant did not file a response following the issuance of this order.
DISCUSSION
The failure to oppose a motion "may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).) Furthermore,"' "[w]hen no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed." [Citation.]' (MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 214.)" (Matteo v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 624, 629.) Before considering the motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, we address the request for judicial notice.
All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
1. The Request for Judicial Notice
The People ask this court to consider court minutes from Fresno County Superior Court case No. F23900436 that are relevant to their motion to dismiss. The minutes show defendant was found to be mentally competent on January 9, 2024. Thereafter, on February 2, 2024, defendant changed his plea to count 1 and the remaining counts and allegations were then dismissed. Finally, on March 5, 2024, defendant was denied probation and was sentenced to a term of two years to state prison. The minutes provide no context or language about the various events documented.
Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452, subdivision (d), and section 459, subdivision (a), this court may take judicial notice of the official acts of any court of this state. Court minutes in case No. F23900436 are a record of a "court of this state." (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); rule 8.252(a)(2)(C).)
We grant the request for judicial notice for the limited purpose of acknowledging the dates when additional actions were taken in this case relevant to the question of whether defendant's appeal is now moot. We do not address any other underlying issues that may or may not be the subject of a subsequent appeal.
2. The Motion to Dismiss the Appeal as Moot
We believe two grounds exist for the dismissal of this appeal. First, defendant failed to respond to this court's order of March 21, 2024, which stated the failure to respond within the time allotted "may be deemed agreement that respondent's motions be granted."
Furthermore, any opinion from this court on the appeal would provide no effective relief on the issue of competency. (See Matteo v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at p. 629.) The information we have just taken judicial notice of shows defendant has already been restored to competency. Any order requiring a second evaluation pursuant to section 1369, subdivision (a), or a reversal of the finding of incompetency based on the lack of a second evaluation, would provide no effective relief to defendant in this case.
With respect to the second issue raised in defendant's opening brief challenging the trial court's order allowing defendant to be involuntarily medicated, we reach the same conclusion. Defendant was obligated after this court's order on March 21, 2024, to indicate how this issue might still be viable. The failure to do so allows this court to grant the People's motion to dismiss the appeal in its entirety. (Rule 8.54(c).)
We also note, after reviewing the record provided in this appeal that substantial evidence supported the order issued by the trial court. (People v. Fisher (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.)
DISPOSITION
The People's motion to dismiss defendant's appeal is granted.
[*] Before Hill, P. J., Poochigian, J. and DeSantos, J.