Opinion ID: 2585200
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Trial court's subsequent failure during guilt and penalty phases to declare a doubt regarding defendant's competency

Text: When, at any time prior to judgment, a trial court is presented with substantial evidence of a defendant's incompetence to stand trial, due process requires a full competency hearing. ( People v. Danielson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 726, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 838 P.2d 729.) `When a competency hearing has already been held and defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding.' ( People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 542, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677, 822 P.2d 385.) A trial court may appropriately take into account its own observations in determining whether the defendant's mental state has significantly changed during the course of trial. ( People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1153, 282 Cal.Rptr. 465, 811 P.2d 757.) Defendant contends that, despite Judge Pierson's ruling that he was competent to stand trial, Judge Eugene M. Azevedo, who presided at trial, was required to conduct a second competency hearing as a result of the accumulation of evidence during the guilt and penalty phases of trial casting serious doubt on the validity of the prior finding of competency. In support, defendant recites in great detail instances of his alleged incompetence. On examination, however, each such instance appears either to manifest the same arguably delusional beliefs reported by Dr. Berg and Dr. Trompetter in their competency evaluations [11] or to reflect the ineptitude frequently exhibited by self-represented defendants. [12] In short, the record fails to establish any change of circumstances or new evidence casting doubt on the prior finding of competency. Judge Azevedo, moreover, in denying defendant's motion for new trial on the ground he was tried while incompetent, stated that defendant didn't show me that he or in [any way] that he was suffering from any kind of a mental disease or mental condition that [a]ffected his ability to represent his own best interests. [13] True, defendant's speech and demeanor at one point during his penalty phase closing argument moved the prosecutor to request that he be examined for signs of being under the influence of controlled substances. Contrary to defendant's argument, such request (which eventuated in a negative finding) was not the equivalent of a declaration of doubt as to defendant's competency within the meaning of section 1367. [14] We see no basis on the present record to conclude Judge Azevedo erred in failing to conduct a second competency hearing. (See People v. Danielson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 727, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 838 P.2d 729 [trial court's decision that a competency hearing is unnecessary is entitled to great deference on appeal].)