PEOPLE v. JOHNSON (1992)

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Darlene JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. F015316.

Decided: April 13, 1992

Janet G. Bangle, State Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for the People. Charles Rothbaum, Visalia, Ann Brick, San Francisco, Julie Mertus, Lynn Paltrow, Rachael N. Pine, New York City, American Civil Liberties Union, for Darlene Johnson. Caroline D. Avery, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson, San Francisco, for amicus curiae College of Obstetricians Etc. and Planned Parenthood Affiliates. Judith Ellen Ganz, San Diego, for amicus curiae, CA, Advocates for Preg. Women. Susan L. Formaker, Los Angeles, for amicus curiae Women Lawyers' Assoc. of L.A.

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.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network