How have the courts treated a defendant's claim that the Attorney General has conceded that the probation violation was improperly based on his exercise of free speech?

Before determining that it is appropriate to decide defendant's argument on the merits, we address his claim that the Attorney General has conceded that the probation violation was improperly based on his exercise of free speech. As defendant points out, the Attorney General did not address the merits of that issue in the respondent's brief, which argues only that the issue is moot. The Attorney General has not, however, made an express concession, and even if there had been an express concession, we would only be required to give it "appropriate deference"; we would not be bound by it. (People v. Alvarado (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 1003, 1021.) We will proceed to the merits of defendant's appeal.