People v. Booker CA1/4 ( 2024 )

Filed 9/25/24 P. v. Booker CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A168982
v.
ROSHA LAFAYE-DENISE (Contra Costa County
BOOKER, Super. Ct.
Nos. 04002034445,
Defendant and
04002037836, 04002034627,
Appellant.
04002035210, 04002037331,
042200261, 042201244)
Rosha Lafaye-Denise Booker appeals two orders from the
trial court: (1) a July 25, 2023 order terminating her
participation in diversion; and (2) an August 21, 2023
commitment order finding her incompetent to stand trial (IST).
Citing People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, People v.
Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020, and Conservatorship of
Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, Booker’s appointed counsel filed a
brief summarizing the facts and asking this court to
independently review the record to identify any issues warranting
relief. This court notified Booker of her opportunity to file a
supplemental brief raising any issues she wished the court to
consider; she has not done so.
1
While the order committing Booker as IST may be appealed
(People v. Christiana (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1045 [“an
order determining the defendant to be incompetent and
committing him to a state hospital is appealable as a final
judgment in a special proceeding”])1, it is less clear that the order
terminating Booker’s diversion is appealable. Assuming
arguendo that it is, we nonetheless dismiss Booker’s appeal as to
the order terminating her diversion as untimely. We also dismiss
her appeal regarding the commitment order on the basis that it
has been mooted by subsequent events.
DISCUSSION
Between January and November 2022, the People filed
seven cases against Booker, charging her with approximately 20
misdemeanor and felony offenses ranging from petty theft to
second degree robbery. We summarize only the most relevant
portions of the procedural history relating to these cases.
Based on her cognitive developmental disability, the trial
court ordered Booker to participate in a diversion program
pursuant to Penal Code section 1001.21 et seq. On July 7, 2023,
however, Booker was discharged from her residential placement
after stealing and using another resident’s credit card. On July
25, 2023, the court terminated Booker’s diversion as
unsuccessful, based on its finding that Booker had only “very,
very short stints of success,” notwithstanding the Regional
1 People v. Christiana was partly superseded by statute on
another point as explained in People v. Lameed (2016)
247 Cal.App.4th 381, 396, footnote 3 [describing a subsequent
amendment to section 1370 not at issue in this case]).
2
Center of the East Bay’s “extraordinary efforts” to get her on
track.
Having found Booker incompetent to stand trial, the court
on August 21, 2023 ordered her to undergo treatment at
Porterville Development Center until she was restored to
competency.
In January 2024, the court found Booker restored to
competency and reinstated criminal proceedings pursuant to
Penal Code section 1372. Shortly thereafter, Booker agreed to
plead no contest to four charges in exchange for dismissal of the
remaining charges and a two-year term of felony probation,
including the requirement that she comply with mental health
treatment as directed by the probation department.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that Booker has
not timely appealed the July 25, 2023 order terminating her
diversion as unsuccessful. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406(a)
[notice of appeal must generally be filed within 60 days of the
order or judgment being appealed].) We further conclude that
any alleged error in committing Booker pursuant to Penal Code
section 1368 was mooted by the court’s subsequent order finding
her restored to competency and reinstating proceedings that
resulted in a favorable disposition of her numerous pending
cases. (People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742, 744 [when a
defendant is found to be mentally competent, appeal of an earlier
incompetency finding is generally moot]; cf. J.J. v. Superior Court
(2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 222, 229 [juvenile’s challenge to order
committing him as incompetent rendered moot by dismissal of
3
delinquency petition, but court nonetheless exercised discretion
to decide issues of first impression].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
BROWN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
STREETER, J.
DOUGLAS, J.
People v. Booker (A168982)

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of
Contra Costa, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article
VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
4