Opinion ID: 2586480
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to appoint second mental health expert

Text: Section 1369, subdivision (a) provides in relevant part: In any case where the defendant or the defendant's counsel informs the court that the defendant is not seeking a finding of mental incompetence, the court shall appoint two mental health experts to evaluate the defendant and render an opinion as to his competence. Defendant asserts the court should have inferred he did not want to be declared incompetent because that finding would have defeat[ed] his effort to regain sole control of his case in order to present his accidental ignition defense. The trial court's failure to appoint a second mental health expert to evaluate him, he contends, violated section 1369 and his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. The contention lacks merit. (1) We rejected an almost identical claim in People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 132-133 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614, 38 P.3d 461]. On appeal, the defendant in Lawley argued that, even though neither he nor his counsel expressly informed the judge conducting the competency hearing that he did not seek a finding of incompetence, the judge should have inferred as much based on his insistence on a court trial, new counsel, or, alternatively, the right to proceed in propria persona. ( Id. at p. 133.) In rejecting the argument, we held that [s]ection 1369, subdivision (a) plainly requires `defendant or the defendant's counsel' to `inform[] the court' that the defense is not seeking a finding of incompetence in order to trigger the required appointment of a second mental health expert. ( Ibid. ) Here, as in Lawley, because neither defendant nor counsel expressly informed the court during the competency hearing that defendant was not seeking a finding of incompetence, the trial court was not required to appoint a second mental health expert, and defendant's contention fails.