People v. Townsend Street Gang CA4/3 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/25/24 P. v. Townsend Street Gang CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE ex rel. TODD
SPITZER, as District Attorney, etc.
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. G062921
TOWNSEND STREET GANG, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-
00727728)
Defendant;
OPINION
JORDAN CASTANEDA,
Real Party in Interest and
Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Layne H. Melzer, Judge. Dismissed.
Sean M. Garcia-Leys, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Todd Spitzer, District Attorney, and John R. Maxfield, Deputy
District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
A civil gang injunction may prohibit gang members within a
“Safety Zone” from engaging in certain conduct (associating with other gang
members, fighting, etc.). Gang members can be held in criminal contempt for
violating the injunction. However, due process requires notice and an
opportunity to be heard (a predeprivation hearing) before the injunction can
be enforced against alleged active gang members not named in the
injunction. (People v. Sanchez (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 727, 756.)
In 2015, a trial court granted a permanent injunction against
defendant Townsend Street gang (TSG). The injunction applied to 14 named
TSG members and other unnamed members. In 2023, plaintiff Orange
County District Attorney (OCDA) filed a motion asking the court to conduct a
predeprivation hearing to determine whether real party in interest Jordan
Castaneda was an active TSG member. The court conducted the hearing and
found Castaneda to be an active TSG member subject to the injunction.
Castaneda filed an appeal claiming the OCDA’s motion did not
state “the grounds upon which it will be made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.)
Castaneda further claimed there was no evidence that he had the specific
intent to further the gang’s illegal aims.
However, just prior to oral argument, the OCDA filed a motion to
dismiss this appeal because Castaneda had recently died. In its written
motion, and at oral argument, the OCDA argued that the appeal is moot
because a gang injunction cannot be enforced against a deceased person.
Castaneda’s counsel opposed the motion to dismiss both in
writing and at oral argument. Counsel argued that while this appeal is moot
as to his client, the issues being raised are of broad public interest and likely
to recur. (See In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23 [“if a pending case poses
an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur, the court may exercise
2
an inherent discretion to resolve that issue even though an event occurring
during its pendency would normally render the matter moot”].)
We find that the two issues being raised in this appeal are moot
as to Castaneda. We further find that issues appear to be fairly narrow, and
we are not convinced that they are of broad public interest and are likely to
recur. Thus, we grant the OCDA’s motion to dismiss.
III.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
MOTOIKE, J.
GOODING, J.
3