facts and the law. Such a brief will provide an adequate basis for the court to dismiss the appeal on its own motion.” (Ben C., at p. 544, footnotes omitted.) Additionally, “[t]he conservatee is to be provided a copy of the brief and informed of the right to file a supplemental brief.” (Id. at p. 544, fn. 6.) The brief filed by defendant’s appointed counsel sets out the applicable facts and the law and indicates he has found no arguable issues. In his supporting declaration, defendant’s counsel states he informed defendant of his intent to file the brief and apprised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. The proof of service accompanying the brief shows that on May 2, 2025, counsel served a copy of the brief on defendant. More than 30 days has elapsed since the filing and service of the

2 brief, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief in this court. Accordingly, under Ben C., dismissal is appropriate. Defendant’s counsel nevertheless urges us to conduct an independent review “to confirm that proper procedures were followed and that the [commitment] order is supported by sufficient evidence.” (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 555 (dis. opn. of George, C.J.).) We decline to do so. The record indicates that in November 2024, SDDC issued a mental status report recommending that the trial court consider defendant competent to stand trial. On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the docket for this case on the trial court’s public website, which reflects that defendant was returned to the custody of the trial court in December 2024. (Super. Ct. Contra Costa Co., Online Case Information Web site [as of Jun. 6, 2025], case no. 022300093.) (See Tabarrejo v. Superior Court (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 849, 855, fn. 2 [judicial notice of trial court docket]; In re Karen G. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1390 [judicial notice of postappeal matter in deciding whether appeal was moot].) Thus, it appears that defendant’s appeal from the commitment order is moot. (See Conservatorship of John L. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 131, 142, fn. 2 [appeal moot where conservatorship ended during appellate process].) As such, this is not a situation where a “second look” at the record would help “to ensure that [defendant is] not inappropriately confined.” (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 556 (dis. opn. of George, C.J.).)2

2 We note defendant was served with the no-arguable-issues brief by mail on May 2, 2025 at the Porterville Development Center even though it appears he is no longer there. It is not apparent whether the brief has been forwarded to defendant at his current location in a timely manner. In any event, this circumstance merely underscores the mootness of the appeal, which provides an independent basis for dismissal.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

_________________________ Fujisaki, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________ Tucher, P.J.

_________________________ Rodríguez, J.

People v. Perez-Mejia (A171161)