People v. Mount
A161195
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- In 1998 Jeffery Mount pleaded guilty to felony possession (Health & Saf. Code §11377(a)) and admitted two prior prison terms; the judgment was affirmed and remittitur issued that year.
- Mount died in 2012.
- In 2020 the Napa County public defender filed an application under Penal Code §1170.18(f) seeking redesignation of Mount’s qualifying felony as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47.
- The trial court held a contested hearing and dismissed the application as presenting no substantial right that would affect a deceased person; the public defender appealed.
- The Attorney General moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing lack of jurisdiction, that a deceased person is not eligible for §1170.18(f) relief and the public defender lacked standing.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because no effective relief could be granted to a deceased defendant and there was no showing of a broader public interest; the court declined to decide whether a deceased person can be a “person” under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a §1170.18(f) application may be granted for a deceased defendant | Mount is eligible; statute does not require the applicant be alive | A deceased person is not a “person” eligible for relief; no effective relief | Dismissed as moot — no effectual relief to a deceased person; court did not decide categorical statutory issue |
| Whether the public defender/appellate counsel could pursue the application or appeal without estate/representative consent | PD and appointed counsel may continue the matter in Mount’s name | PD lacked standing and consent of personal representative/heirs required | Court assumed arguendo counsel could proceed but resolved case on mootness; standing issue left undecided |
| Whether the mootness exception for issues of general public concern applies | Case raises novel public-law question warranting review despite mootness | No showing of broader public interest or impact from redesignating a deceased defendant’s conviction | Exception not applied — no evidence of compelling public interest; appeal moot |
| Whether Mount’s entire conviction should be abated ab initio because he is deceased | Abatement should dismiss the 1998 conviction on remand | Abatement ab initio applies only when death occurs during a direct appeal; Mount’s conviction was final in 1998 | Abatement inapplicable; conviction final and not subject to abatement here |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (2018) (describing Proposition 47 remedies including redesignation procedure)
- People v. Montgomery, 247 Cal.App.4th 1385 (2016) (discussing Proposition 47’s economic purpose)
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979) (procedures for appellate review in pro se criminal appeals)
- Toohey v. Toohey, 97 Cal.App.2d 84 (1950) (authority to dismiss appeal when record shows no relief can be granted)
- In re Sodersten, 146 Cal.App.4th 1163 (2007) (mootness doctrine and public-interest exception)
- People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (2008) (abatement when defendant dies during direct appeal)
- Dixon v. Superior Court, 195 Cal.App.3d 758 (1987) (rationale for abatement ab initio)
- People v. Schaefer, 208 Cal.App.4th 1283 (2012) (procedure and effect of abatement orders)
- People v. de St. Maurice, 166 Cal. 201 (1913) (historical statement of abatement effect)
- Archdale v. American Internat. Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 154 Cal.App.4th 449 (2007) (definition of when a judgment becomes final)