The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Darlene JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.
In her letter filed on April 3, 1992, appellant has conceded that the issues in this appeal are moot and that “․ dismissal of this appeal is appropriate.” Appellant further states:
“Moreover, the Superior Court's recognition that the coercive use of Norplant fails to serve the rehabilitative goals of California's probation statute both addresses the statutory concerns raised in this case and protects the constitutional right to privacy. It is therefore unnecessary for this Court to determine the validity of the lower court's original order compelling Johnson to submit to Norplant implantation as a condition of probation.”
“It is well settled that the duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” (National Assn. of Wine Bottlers v. Paul (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 741, 746.)
This court concludes that the issues in this case constitute matters which “․ should be left to a future case in which the issue is fully justiciable.” (People v. Ibarra (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 546, 550.) The appeal is dismissed.
MARTIN, Acting Presiding Justice.