In re Sasser

Filed 11/1/10 In re Sasser CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
In re ALBERT SASSER
on Habeas Corpus.
B224785
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BH006495)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Peter Paul
Espinoza, Judge. Reversed with directions.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Anya M. Binsacca and Amanda Lloyd, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Appellant.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent.
_____________________

-- 1 of 3 --

2
In 1983, Albert Sasser was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to an
indeterminate term of 15 years to life in prison (Sasser was also convicted of conspiracy
to commit extortion, attempted extortion, and assault by force likely to produce great
bodily injury). On February 25, 2009, the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) found
Sasser suitable and granted parole. The Governor reversed the Board’s decision. In July
2009, the superior court granted Sasser’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding the
Governor’s reversal was not supported by some evidence that Sasser currently posed an
unreasonable risk of danger to society if released (see In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29
Cal.4th 616, 652), and ordered Sasser be released in accord with the parole date
calculated by the Board. The Attorney General appealed from that order, contending the
Governor’s decision was supported by some evidence in the record.
Subsequently, this court learned that on February 3, 2010, the Board found Sasser
was unsuitable for parole and then asked the parties to address the effect of that
decision.1 Although the Attorney General asserted the 2010 Board decision had no
effect on his appeal as it did not affect the merits of Governor’s prior decision, Sasser
argued this appeal was moot as a court may only decide justifiable controversies. (See
Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. v. Felt (1931) 214 Cal. 308, 316; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure
(5th ed. 2008) Actions, § 21, pp. 84-86 & § 32, pp. 98-100.) As conceded by Sasser,
even if this court were to affirm the superior court’s order, Sasser would still be subject to
the 2010 Board decision and would not be entitled to release. Accordingly, we agree the
appeal is moot.
However, rather than dismiss this appeal as moot, leaving the order releasing
Sasser intact, this court will reverse the superior court’s order with directions to dismiss
1 Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c), this court takes judicial
notice of the transcript of the February 3, 2010, hearing at which the Board decided
Sasser was “not suitable for parole.” (See Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
(2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 484.)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the petition. (See Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc. (1964) 62 Cal.2d 129, 134; Giles v. Horn
(2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206, 229; Eisenberg et al., Cal Practice Guide: Civil Appeals
and Writs (the Rutter Group 2009) ¶ 5:34.)
DISPOSITION
The superior court order is reversed with directions to dismiss the petition as moot.
WOODS, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
JACKSON, J.

-- 3 of 3 --