1

Filed 2/2/15 P. v. Brooks CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. ANTHONY RAY BROOKS, SR., Defendant and Appellant. A137810
(Solano County Super. Ct. No. VCR213930)

I.
INTRODUCTION Appellant Anthony Ray Brooks , Sr. was convicted of assault ing Frank
McCormick with a deadly weapon and sentenced to an eight

- year prison term

. He seeks
reversal of the judgment on tw o grounds : (1) prosecutor ial misconduct; and (2) failure to conduct a hearing regarding his mental competence to stand trial. We affirm.
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS The incident that gave rise to this case occurred between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. on the morning of January 9 , 2012, at Max Auto Top Shop in Vallejo
, a car wash, upholstery shop
, and makeshift residence where people paid to live, squatter style. That morning the shop ’ s residents included appellant
, Frank McCormick , Dale Nance, and Cha rles “ Mike ”
Kester. Appellant ’ s cousin “ Ray

- Ray ” was also at the shop with his dog. McCormick
and Kester testified about the incident at trial.2

McCormick testified that he and his roommate Nance were laying on their respective couches watching televisio n and appellant was in the next room ta lking with
Kester. Then Ray

- Ray came into their room and McCormick told him to get h is dog out of the shop. Suddenly appellant charged in and attacked McCormick , hit him several
times with a paint pole
, stabb ed him in the thigh with a knife , and cut him across the
ankle after he tried to defend himself by kicking appellant. McCormick testified his
ankle wound was so severe his whole foot was “ hanging off. ” McCormick also testified
that he had known appellant f or at least 20 years , never had any problems with him
, and
had considered him a friend.
Kester testifi ed that he and appellant were in an adjacent room at the shop just before appellant ’ s altercation with McCormick

. Kester was in bed trying to sleep whil e appellant was attempting to attach Kester ’ s knife to the end of a paint pole and
thre atening to cut Kester with it. Kester did not take appellant seriously, jok ed around
with him and pretended to be afraid. Appellant ’ s cousin Ray

- Ray was also in the ro om, but went next door to use the bathroom

. Kester heard McCormick yell at Ray

- Ray to take the dog outside

. Then appellant left the room, taking the paint pole and the knife

. Kester heard yelling and a scuffle and went to investigate. He met Ray

- Ray and appellant on the ir way out of McCormick ’ s room. Kester asked appellant to give him the
knife. Appellant complied and th en left the shop with Ray

- Ray. Kester found
McCormick bleeding and attempted to administer aid

. McCormick testified that Kester called the police, although Kester did not recall doing so. However, Kester was “ certain ”
he gave the knife to the police. He could not remember see ing the pole after the fight and did not know what happened to it. 1 Vallejo p olice o fficer Kyle W ylie was dispatched to Max Auto Top Shop at approximately 2:30 a.m. on the morning of January 9. Wylie testified that he found

1 A defense investigator who interviewed Kester before trial testified that Kester reported he had slept through the altercation between appellant and McCormick a nd did not see any part of it. The investigator testified that Kester never mentioned the knife, the pole, or that appellant ha d threatened h im that morning.3

McCormick sitting in a chair bleeding profusely from his left upper thigh and the top of his right foot. T here was blood on McC ormick ’ s clothes, pooled on the floor under the chair, and throughout a pathway cutting through all the junk and le ading to the back of the shop. Wylie recalled McCormick told him that before he was attacked, he was awakened by appellant and Kester who we re having an argument in the other room. 2 One of the other residents mentioned a pit bull dog, but the officer did not recall any mention of appellant ’ s cousin or a man named Ray

- Ray. Officer Wylie was at the shop for approximately 15 minutes before he went to another call. He did not find a kn ife or see any kind of a pole.
McCormick testified that after he gave his statement to the police , he was taken to the hospital by ambulance, where his thigh wound was sewn up . H e had to have surgery to repair his ankle
, and then he ha d to wear a cast for two week s

. At the time of trial, th e ankle still caused him pain. McCormick admitted that he smoked marijuana every day
, but testified that he had not smoked the morning of the attack . He also used to drink beer
several times a week
, but testified that he had not been drinking at the time of the attack

. The prosecution introduced medical records describing McCormick ’ s injuri es. The
defense introduced medical records containing admissions that McCormick smok ed marijuana and drank at least one beer on January 9

. On February 12, 2012, Vallejo p olice o fficer Brian Estudillo was dispatched to the Max Auto Top Shop in resp onse to a call from McCormick. When he arrived,
McCormick waved him down on the street, and pointed to appellant, ide ntifying him as
his assailant. Officer Estudillo arrested appellant , informed him of his Miranda 3 rights
and took his statement. Appellant told the officer t hat he and McCormick used to live together; they had an argument when M cCormick was very drunk ; and McCormick tried
to attack him
, but ended up falling on his own knife. Appellant did not testify at trial

.

2 Wylie testified that McCormick gave him a brief “ overview ” of what happened but did not tell the jury what McCormick actually said about the altercation.

3 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.4 III.
DISCUSSION
A. The Prosecutor Did Not Commit Prejudicial Misconduct
1. Issue Presented and Legal Principles Appellant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by misstating the law regarding the People ’ s burden of proof . Appellant forfeited this claim of error by failing to object to the allegedly improper statements and request an admonition. ( People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 337 ( Wilson ).) Nevertheless, we address the merits of this claim in light of appellant ’ s alternative claim that the failure to object constituted in effective assistance of counsel.

“ A prosecutor ’ s conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal
Constitution when it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process. Conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law only if it involves the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the trial court or the jury. ” ( People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34, 44; see also People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 167; Wilson
, supra , 36 Cal.4th at p. 337.) In this case, appellant contends his federal due process rights were violated because the prosecutor ’ s allegedly erroneous statements rendered his trial fundamentally
unfair. “ ‘ To prevail on a claim of pr osecutorial misconduct based on remarks to the jury, the defendant must show a reasonable likelihood the jury understood or applied the complained

- of comments in an improper or erroneous manner. ’ [Citation.] ‘ Prosecutors
have wide latitude to discuss and draw inferences from the evidence at trial. [Citation.] Whether the inferences the prosecutor draws are reasonable is for the jury to decide. [Citation.] ’ [Citation.] ” ( Wilson
, supra , 36 Cal.4th at p. 337.)
2

. Background During her closing argument, the prosecutor urged the jury to apply the law set forth in the jury instruction s to the “ credible evidence. ” She reviewed the evidence establishing that defendant was present when the altercation occurred and that5

McCormick was seriously injur e d
, and then she focused the jury ’ s attention on the need
to determine whether McCor mick ’ s statement was credible. She proceeded to argue that the evidence supported McCormick ’ s statement , and if the jury found that statement
credible all of the elements o f the as sault charge were established. Then, the prosecutor made the following statement: “ So those are the elements of the case, which is what beyond a reasonable doubt applies to. It doesn ’ t apply to, where was the blood? It
doesn ’ t apply to, where i s the knife now? It applies to the elements of this case. Do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that these elements have been met? [¶] That ’ s what beyond a reasonable doubt is. ” The prosecutor also s pent time attempting to show that appellant ’ s vers ion of the
alt ercation was a “ flat

- out lie. ” At the conclusion of this argument, she made this

statement: “ Once you ’ ve decided the evidence, you apply it to the facts. Credibility is separate from beyond a reasonable doubt. Credibility is your determination of the evidence you believe and you ap ply that evidence to the law. ” Like the prosecutor, defense counsel focused her closing argument on
McCormick ’ s credibility , but she argued that he was not a credible witness for multiple

reasons. Defen se counsel also attacked Kester ’ s credibility on the ground that he seemed
drunk when he was on the witness stand
, and that he previously told the defense investigator he slept through the entire altercation. Counsel also questioned what Kester
had don e w ith the knife and the pole.
D efense counsel a lso a rgued that the statement appellant gave police was as reasonable as McCormick ’ s account of the incident

. She told the jury that if it concluded that both versions of the event were reasonably plausible, t he prosecutor failed to carry her burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. According to defense counsel
,

“ at the end of the day, the People have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.
McCormick ’ s statement is credible, and they have not don e that

. . . . ” During her rebuttal, the prosecutor responded to defense counsel ’ s various credibility arguments, encouraged the jury to follow the court ’ s instructions and to be cognizant of the distinctions between making a credibility finding and drawi ng6

reasonable inferences from circumst antial evidence. Counsel urged the jury not to be distracted by missing facts or evidence that was not necessary to prove the elements of the charge

. The prosecutor then referenced a jury instruction that clarified t he prosecution was not required to present all the witnesses or produce all the evidence

. In making this argument, the prosecutor said: “ This case isn ’ t about, as I said before, where
is the knife ? It would be great to have it, but reasonable doubt applies to the elements of the case, not, ‘ W ell, why don ’ t we have this? ’ [¶] We don ’ t have it, so you have to make a decision based on the evidence you have. The fact that it ’ s not here isn ’ t reasonab le
doubt or isn ’ t, um, go to the element. Does this evidence as presented, does this evidence as presented prove all the elements of the case? ”
Near the end of her rebuttal , the prosecutor made the following additional remark about the beyond a reasonabl e doubt standard of proof: “ The judge has given you the instruction, and [defense counsel] held up a nice chart and it talks about other levels of
doubt and it ’ s not, you know, a strong suspicion. It ’s not this or that, and that ’ s true, but
it ’ s not unre asonable doubt. It ’ s not beyond a shadow of a doubt. I could say the same thing; I can give you all kinds of other ways of saying more than beyond a reasonable doubt. It is exactly what it says. Is there a reasonable doubt that this happene d based on

t he evidence? [¶] Do you have the facts that you can articulate, that you can say ‘ I don ’ t think it happened because of a fact, because of this, because of that. ’ [¶] If you believe this happened, and you have no reasonable doubt, if you believe this happ ened based on the evidence that was presented here in Court, then the defendant is guilty. ”
3

. Analysis Appellant contends the prosecutor misstated the law by telling the jury that the beyond the reasonable doubt standard did not apply to every element of the People ’ s

case. “ ‘ [I]t is improper for the prosecutor to misstate the law generally [citation], and particul arly to attempt to absolve the prosecution from its prima facie obligation to overcome reasonable doubt on all elements. [Citation.] ’ [Citation.] ” ( People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 829

- 830.) However, the record of closing arguments summarized
abov e does not support appellant ’ s factual claim. The prosecutor never said that the7

reasonable doubt standard did not apply to certain elements of the People ’ s case

. Rather,
she reviewed the elements of the assault charge and then explicitly acknowledged th at the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof applie d to those elements. Appellant contends that the prosecutor “ twisted the jury ’ s responsibility and substantially lessened her burden ” by telling the jury that credibility determinations are not subj ect to the beyond the reasonable doubt standard. We disagree with this argument
, which is not supported by reasoned analysis or legal authority. The distinction that the prosecutor drew between the jury ’ s assessment of witness credibility and the prosecu tor ’ s burden of proving the elements of the charged crime was not erroneous , and appellant
fails to demonstrate how the jury could have been misled by it. Appellant makes the separate argument th at the prosecutor impermissibly shifted
the b urden of proof onto the defense near the end of counsel ’ s rebuttal argument by asking the jury if there were “ facts that you can articulate ” to show that the assault did not happen. The defendant does not have the burden of producing evidence to
demonstr ate that a reasonable doubt exists; the jury may “ simply not be persuaded by the prosecution ’ s evidence. [Citation.] ” ( People v. Hill
, supra , 17 Cal.4th at p p

. 831

- 832 .) Thus, a prosecutor commits misconduct if there is a reasonable likelihood that her

comments “ were understood by the jury to mean [that the] defendant had the burden of producing evidence to demonstrate a reasonable doubt of his guilt. ” ( Id

. at p. 832 ; see also People v. Booker ( 2011 ) 51 Cal.4th 141, 186.) If viewed in isolation, the pr osecutor ’ s statement could conceivably have been
misconstrued as telling the jury it had to articulate why it had a reasonable doubt before it could find appellant was not guilty. However, in context, it seems clear that the prosecutor was simply making a comment about the state of the evidence by pointing out
there was no evidence that undermined McCormick ’ s testimony about what happened. This conclusion is reinforced by consider ing the prosecutor ’ s argument as a whole. During that argument the prosecutor explicitly and accurate ly informed the jury about the People ’ s burden of proof. She also urged the jury to follow the court ’ s instructions

.8

The jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 200 regarding its obligation to follow
the law as set forth in the instructions, and to disregard attorney comments that were inconsistent with the instructions. Furthermore, the jury was also instructed with CALCRIM No. 222, which told them that “ [n]othing that the attorney s say is evidence.”
CALCRIM No. 220 corre ctly instructed the jury about the presumption of innocence and the prosecutor ’ s burden of proving gu ilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Another instruction the jury received, CALCRIM No. 355, told them that the defendant has the right to “ rely
on the state of the evidence and argue that the People have failed to prove the charg es beyond a reasonable doubt.” We presume that the jury followed t he se instructions. ( People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 436 ; see also People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 12 95 .) We also presume that the “ ‘ the jury treated the court ’ s instructions as statements of law, and the prosecutor ’ s comments as words spoken by an advocate in an attempt to persuade. ’ ” ( People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 646; see also People v. S amayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 844 .) Thus, we conclude that any lingering danger the jury might have misinterpreted or been misled by this one ambiguous remark the prosecutor made near the end of her rebuttal was eliminated by the jury instructions the court gave in this case. For all of these reasons, we reject appellant ’ s contention that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during closing argument.
B. The Trial Court Was Not Required to Hold a Competency Hearing
1. Issue Presented and G uiding Principles Appellant contends that the trial court violated its sua sponte duty to conduct a competency hearing when faced with substantial evidence that appellant was not mentally competent to stand trial.

“ ‘ “ Both the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and state law prohibit the state from trying or convicting a criminal defendant while he or she is mentally incompetent. [Citations.] ” ’

. . . ” ( People v.
Sattiewhite (2014) 59 Cal.4th 446, 464.) “ A defendant is deemed competent to stand trial only if he ‘ “ has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable9

degree of rational understanding ” ’ and ‘ “ has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him

. ” ’ [Citation.] ” ( People v. Ary (2011) 51 Cal.4th 510, 517.)

“ If presented with ‘ evidence that raises a reasonable doubt about a defendant ’ s mental competence to stand trial, ’ a trial court must suspend the criminal proceeding and hold a hearing to determine the defendant ’ s mental competence. [Citation.] ‘ A trial

court ’ s decision whether or not to hold a competence hearing is entitled to deference,
because the court has the o pportunity to observe the defendant during trial. ’ [Citation.] ” ( People v. Elliott (2012) 53 Cal.4th 535, 583.)

“ ‘ “ Evidence of incompetence may emanate from several sources, including the
defendant ’ s demeanor, irrational behavior, and prior mental ev aluations. [Citations.] ” [Citation.] But to be entitled to a competency hearing, “ a defendant must exhibit more
than bizarre

. . . behavior, strange words, or a preexisting psychiatric condition that has little bearing on the question of whether the def endant can assist his defense counsel. [Citations.] ” [Citation.] ’ [Citation.] ” ( People v. Sattiewhite
, supra , 59 Cal. 4th at

pp. 464

- 465.)
2 . Background At appellant ’ s arraignment on February 15 , 2012, the court found he qualified for appointed counsel and stated that a public defender would be appointed to represent him. Appellant responded by requesting “ to go pro per. ” After conducting an inquiry pursuant

to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 , t he court granted that request.
At the beginning of the February 28, 2012 preliminary hearing
, appellant stated he was ready to proceed and that he had no motions to present

. The prosecutor elic i ted testimony from Frank McCormick. At one point, appell ant interrupted to dispute something McCormick said. The court explained appellant needed to follow the same rules that applied to an attorney. However, appellant was unable to formula te a legal objection. During h is own cross

- examination appellant cont inued to s truggle with the
rules governing examination of a witness

. After the prosecution rested, appellant called himself as a witness and presented his version of what happened on January 9
, which10

centered on his efforts to assist a woman named Nicole Blakely who appellant believed was being held in the back room of Max A uto Top Shop against her will. The prosecutor
did not offer rebuttal evidence but asked instead that the court consider whether there was

a doubt about appellant ’ s competency. In resp onse, the court conducted the following inquiry:

“ THE COURT:

. . . Do you feel that you are mentally competent to go forward with this proceeding? Do you understand what we ’re doing here today?

“ THE DEFENDANT: No, I really don ’ t, Your Honor.

“ THE COU RT: Do you understand what my role is here?

“ THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

“ THE COURT: What is my role?

“ THE DEFENDANT: To judge this case.

“ THE COURT: And do you know what the prosecutor ’ s role is over there?

“ THE DEFENDANT: To represent that guy that

— that just left here.

“ THE COURT: And do you have any other idea of what her role is in this case?

“ THE DEFENDANT: To prosecute me, Your Honor.

“ THE COURT: All right. And you had requested to represent yourself in this
matter?

“ THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma ’ am.

“ THE COURT: And you also know that you need witnesses to testify on your
behalf?

“ THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor , but I didn ’ t

— I feel

— I feel I ’ m not ready. I ’ d rat her have a lawyer, Your Honor.

“ THE COURT: I ’ m sorry; I can ’ t hear you.

“ THE D EFENDANT: I will decline representing myself. I would rather have a
Public Defender.

“ THE COURT: So you feel at this time that you want to abandon your representation of yourself and have an attorney step in to help you?

“ THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma ’ am.11

“ THE COURT: Did you wish to be heard?

“ [THE PROSECUTOR]: Um

—

“ THE COURT: I don ’ t think he ’ s mentally incompetent.

“ [THE PROSECUTOR]: I agree after the Court voir dired him on that

. . . .” After further discussion, the court ordered that an attorne y would be appointed for appellant prior to another arraignment and th at defense counsel would have the opportunity to request that the preliminary h earing be re

- opened. On March 13, 2012, the public defender ’ s office was formally app ointed to represent appellant. Thereafter, appellant made three unsuccessful motion s to r eplace his appointed counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3 d 118.
At a May 21 Marsden hearing, appellant complained that his attorney had lied to him; that she was not doing the investigation he wanted done; that she was not being fair ; that she was not taking his case seriously ; and that the y did not see eye

- to

- eye. Defense counsel provided responses to these complaints and explained that she did not feel there
had be en a breakdown in communication. She understood appellant wanted to locate a witness named Nicole and that he wanted to explore the option of a residential treatment program and she was pursuing both matters. After counsel described the work she had
done and appellant had an opportunity to respond, the Marsden motion was denied.
At a June 6 Marsden hearing, appellant ’ s primary complaints were that his attorney refused to file a motion to impeach McCormick ’ s testimony ; that she was not showing him all the evidence; and that she was not effe ctively fighting for his case. Defense counsel responded that she had explained why appellant ’ s motion was not proper; that she did not have copies of the evidence he wanted but would try to get them; and that appellan t was refusing to talk to her. Appellant clarified that although he did not want this attorney
, he was not refusing to cooperate with her. He told the judge this was his second request for a different lawyer and asked for assurance that the record would

s how that the court either granted or denied it. The court denied the Marsden motion.
At a June 26 Marsden hearing, appellant complained his attorney had not spent time with him to discuss the strategy for the case; that he was not ready to go to trial12

be cause she had not secured witnesses for him; and she made smart remarks, had an
attitude and did not like men. Appellant felt that his attorney did not have a strategy for his defense and she did not make him feel like justice was being don e. Again, coun sel responded to each of appellant ’ s complaints. She denied that she disliked men and she explained her efforts to locate witnesses and prepare for trial. Counsel also explained that part of the reason their visits did not go well was that appellant was focused on
Marsden motions and often did no t want to talk about the case. Counsel also stated that appellant could make their relationship work if he wanted , explaining “ I ’ m willing to do whatever he wants and to talk with him. I think we do have a hard time communicating
because he often doe s n ’ t want to communicate with me or talk to me, so

— ” At that point, the court denied the Marsden motion

. At the June 26 hearing, after the Marsden motion was denied, appellant made a request through his attorney for a continuance so the defense could conduct additional investigation. Appellant personally waived time on the record. Speaking for himself, appellant also requested that the court “ Document ” that his Marsden motion was denied

. He also asked for a bail reduction, arguing it was too high, he was a Vallejo native who was not going anywhere, he had not been on parole
, and he had nobody to co

- sig n for
him. Appe llant ’ s trial was conducted in September 2012. Prior to jury selection, the court and counsel discussed amending the information to strike an allegation that the charged assault with a deadly weapon was committed “ by means likely to produce GBI ”
and to cl arify that a separate special allegation of GBI pertaine d to the assault of
McCormick. Appellant interjected that he did not understand the issue and asked if his attorney could explain it to him. The court allowed defense counsel to confer with her
clie nt , after which counsel advised the court that the appell ant agreed with the
amendment.
3

. Anal ys is Appellant contends the question of his competency arose “ almost as soon as he opened his mouth at the preliminary hearing ” and continued throughout that proceeding

.13

The preliminary hearing transcript shows that appellant did not understand the rules for conducting a cross

- examination, that he was overly anxious to tell his side of the story,
and that he was not a polished or effective speaker . These circ umstances are evidence
that appellant was not equipped or qualified to represent himself but they are not evidence sufficient to require the trial court to conduct a competency hearing because they are not necessarily indicative of mental incompetence to s tand trial. Furthermore, the superior court, who was in the best position to evaluate appellant ’ s competency , did not ignore these circumstances . It conducted an inquiry which clarified that appellant ’ s problem at the preliminary hearing was not mental i ncompeten ce , but that he wanted and needed a lawyer to assist him. Appellant contends that each of his Marsden motion hearings produced substantial evidence of his mental incompetence because the complaints he presented were

“ incoherent
, ” and the court should have realized that his “ challenges ” communicating
those complaints paralleled his “ frustrated attempts to assist in his own defense. ” As reflected in our summary of the Marsden proceedings, we disagree with appellant that his complai nts were in coher ent. A ppellant often misused words, and he was not a talented public speaker
, but the record demonstrates that both the trial court and defense counsel understood the complaints that appellant was making

. Appellant insists that it was “ pa infully evident that he was not communicating successfully with his counsel and that this failure of communication was interfering with
his defense. ” Again the record shows otherwise. At each Marsde n hearing, appellant ’ s defense counsel was able to respo nd to appellant ’ s complaints and provide explanations for the things she did or did not do. Furthermore, appellant misconstrues disagreements about how to handle this case as evidence that he and his attorney did not understand
each other. Finally, appel la nt ’ s extremely selective summary of the pretrial proceeding ignores the many indications that he understood the proceedings against him and had sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer. As reflected in our summary above, appellant understood and ex ercised his right to represent himself; he understood and14

exercised his right to request appointed counsel; and he understood and repeatedly
exercised his right thereafter to request different appointed counsel. The record also
shows that a ppellant had his own ideas about trial strategy, what motions to make and
what witnesses to call
, but the fact that his trial counsel rejected those ideas does not
mean she did not underst and them. For all of these reasons, we reject the contention that the superior c ourt overlooked substantial evidence of appellant ’ s mental incomp e tency

. IV.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.15 _________________________ RUVOLO, P. J.

We concur:

_________________________ REARDON, J.

_________________________ RIVERA, J.16

A137810, People v. Brooks