Opinion ID: 1277687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Court's Failure to Declare a Doubt About Defendant's Competence

Text: Defendant contends that there was substantial evidence before the trial court indicating he was not competent to stand trial, and that therefore the trial court erred in not declaring a doubt as to his competence pursuant to section 1368, subdivision (a). Defendant asserts that the evidence presented to the trial court in the context of the Faretta hearing led it to determine that defendant was not competent to waive his right to counsel, and that, having made that determination, the court should have declared a doubt as to defendant's competence to stand trial and should have ordered a hearing to determine his competence pursuant to section 1368. As reflected in the record described above, the trial court expressly found defendant competent to stand trial. We do not agree that, nonetheless, the evidence supporting the trial court's finding that defendant was incompetent to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to the assistance of counsel does, or must be deemed to, constitute substantial evidence that defendant was incompetent to, stand trial, or that the court's finding of incompetence to waive counsel as a matter of law must be equated with a finding of incompetence to stand trial. In Dusky v.. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 78:8, 4 L.Ed.2d 824, the United States Supreme Court defined competence to stand trial as a defendant's `sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding' and `a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.' As explained above, in Godinez, supra, 509 U.S. 389, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321, the court defined competence to plead guilty or to waive the assistance of counsel, equating it with competence to stand trial. ( Id. at p. 398, 113 S.Ct. 2680.) In Godinez, the high court also stated that the standard for competence to plead guilty or to waive the assistance of counsel is not constitutionally required to be higher than or different from, the standard it enunciated in Dusky (509 U.S. at p. 398, 113 S.Ct. 2680), and that although the states are free to adopt competence standards for waiving the assistance of counsel that are more elaborate than the Dusky formulation, the Due Process clause of the federal Constitution does not so require. (509 U.S. at p. 402, 113 S.Ct. 2680.) Our state statute provides that a person is mentally incompetent to stand trial if, as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, the defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner. (§ 1367.) Our state statutes do not separately define competence to waive the assistance of counsel. Section 1368 provides in relevant part that (a) If ... a doubt arises in the mind of the trial judge as to the mental competence of the defendant, he or she shall state the doubt on the record and inquire of the attorney for the defendant whether, in the opinion of the attorney, the defendant is mentally competent.... At the request of the defendant or his or her counsel or upon its own motion, the court shall recess the proceedings ... to permit counsel to confer with the defendant and to form an opinion as to the mental competence of the defendant at that point in time. [¶] (b) If counsel informs the court that he or she believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent, the court shall order that the question of the defendant's mental competence is to be determined in a hearing, and even if counsel informs the court that he or she believes the defendant is mentally competent, the court may nevertheless order a hearing. In People v. Stankewitz (1982) 32 Cal.3d 80, 91-92, 184 Cal.Rptr. 611, 648 P.2d 578, we observed that even though section 1368 is phrased in terms of whether a doubt arises in the mind of the trial judge and is then confirmed by defense counsel, as this court recognized in People v. Pennington (1967) 66 Cal.2d 508, 516-517, 58 Cal. Rptr. 374, 426 P.2d 942, once the accused has come forward with substantial evidence of incompetence to stand trial, due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right. ( Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 384-386, 86 S.Ct. 836,15 L.Ed.2d 815.) In that event, the trial judge has no discretion to exercise. ( People v. Pennington, supra, 66 Cal.2d at pp. 518-519, 58 Cal.Rptr. 374, 426 P.2d 942.) As we also have noted, substantial evidence of incompetence is sufficient to require a full competence hearing even if the evidence is in conflict. ( People v. Stankewitz, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 92-93, 184 Cal.Rptr. 611, 648 P.2d 578.) We have concluded that where the substantial evidence test is satisfied and a full competence hearing is required but the trial court fails to hold one, the judgment must be reversed. ( Ibid. ) Substantial evidence has been defined as evidence that raises a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant's competence to stand trial. ( People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 951-952, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183; People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 527, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 826, 896 P.2d 119.) In People v. Pennington, supra, 66 Cal.2d at page 519, 58 Cal.Rptr. 374, 426 P.2d 942, we enunciated the following standards regarding what would constitute substantial evidence of incompetence to stand trial: If a psychiatrist or qualified psychologist [citation], who has had sufficient opportunity to examine the accused, states under oath with particularity that in his professional opinion the accused is, because of mental illness, incapable of understanding the purpose or nature of the criminal proceedings being taken against him or is incapable of assisting in his defense or cooperating with counsel, the substantial-evidence test is satisfied. In the present case, neither defendant nor defense counsel presented substantial evidence of defendant's incompetence to stand trial. [7] Defendant contends nonetheless that the trial court, in giving its reasons for denying defendant's request for self-representation, itself acknowledged the presence of a prima facie showing of substantial evidence requiring that the court declare a doubt as to defendant's competence to stand trial and proceed to a hearing pursuant to section 1368. Defendant further contends that the trial court's failure to do so, despite having noted this substantial evidence, requires reversal of the judgment. Defendant relies specifically upon the trial court's findings regarding defendant's paranoid distrust of the judicial system and its related comments that defendant's beliefs in that regard disabled him from representing himself. Viewed in light of the standard that the trial court believed applicable to the decision whether defendant could competently, knowingly, and intelligently waive the assistance of counsel, it is evident that the trial court found that defendant's disposition to distrust and to act contrary to the dictates of the judicial system amounted to a disability to represent himself effectively. The record is replete with instances demonstrating defendant's knowledge of case authority, courtroom procedure, and other aspects of legal representation. It is apparent that the trial court did not regard defendant's thoroughgoing distrust of the judicial system as an indication that defendant lacked `a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him' or `sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding' ( Dusky v. United States, supra, 362 U.S. at p. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788). Instead, the trial court viewed defendant's words and actions as evidence that he would not be willing to cooperate, compromise, or negotiate with the participants in that system, to the detriment of his legal representation. In asserting that substantial evidence existed of his mental incapacity to stand trial, defendant also relies upon, the psychiatric expert testimony presented by the defense at the penalty phase describing his considerable mental problems. We review the correctness of the trial court's ruling at the time it was made, however, and not by reference to evidence produced at a later date. (See People v. Turner (1984) 37 Cal.3d 302, 312, 208 Cal.Rptr. 196, 690 P.2d 669; People v. Greenberger (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 298, 336, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 61.) The trial court did not have this evidence before it at the time of its ruling on the Faretta motion, and indeed did not have any expert evidence at that time because, having requested to represent himself, defendant refused to speak with a psychiatrist appointed to determine whether defendant was capable of self-representation. In view of these considerations, we may not conclude that the trial court's review of the evidence of defendant's competence at the hearing on the Faretta motion revealed substantial evidence of present incompetence that would trigger a duty on behalf of the court to declare a doubt as to defendant's competence to stand trial, and to institute competence proceedings under section 1368. Thus, the trial court was not required to declare a doubt on this basis as to defendant's competence to stand trial. As described above, although we have determined that the trial court's failure, in a case in which substantial evidence of incompetence appears, to declare a doubt as to the defendant's ability to stand trial subjects the judgment to reversal, [w]hen the evidence casting doubt on an accused's present sanity is less than substantial ... only where a doubt as to sanity may be said to appear as a matter of law or where there is an abuse of discretion may the trial judge's determination be disturbed on appeal. ( People v. Pennington, supra, 66 Cal.2d at p. 518, 58 Cal.Rptr. 374, 426 P.2d 942; People v. Merkouris (1959) 52 Cal.2d 672, 678-679, 344 P.2d 1, disapproved on another point in People v. Pennington, supra, 66 Cal.2d at p. 518, 58 Cal.Rptr. 374, 426 P.2d 942.) Therefore, we next decide whether a doubt as to defendant's sanity may be said to appear as a matter of law. If the trial court, in determining the competence of defendant to represent himself, in effect declared a doubt as to defendant's competence to stand trial, then doubt as to sanity would exist as a matter of law. It was in 1988 that the trial court was presented with, and ruled upon, defendant's Faretta motion. At that time, the decisional law in this state held that mental competence to stand trial is not equated with competence to waive the assistance of counsel. ( People v. Burnett, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1321, 234 Cal.Rptr. 67 [[S]ince the standard for determining competence to stand trial is lower than the standard for determining competence to waive counsel, the fact that a person has been found mentally competent to stand trial with the assistance of counsel ... therefore does not necessarily mean he or she is competent to waive the right to counsel and proceed to trial unassisted.]; People v. Powell (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 469, 482-483, 225 Cal.Rptr. 703; People v. Leever (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 853, 864, 219 Cal.Rptr. 581; People v. Zatko (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 534, 541-543, 145 Cal.Rptr. 643; see also People v. Canfield (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1357, 1361, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 825 [finding the standard of competence to waive counsel not necessarily higher than, although related but distinguishable from, the standard of competence to stand trial]; 5 Witkin and Epstein, Cal.Criminal Law (2d ed. 1989) Trial, § 2818, p. 3429; cf. People v. Hightower (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1114-1116, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 40 [disapproving Canfield, Burnett, and other decisions in light of Godinez. ]) As explained above, in 1993, in Godinez, supra, 509 U.S. 389, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321, the high court clarified that under the federal due process clause, a defendant who wishes to waive counsel need not be more competent than a defendant must be to stand trial or to waive other rights. It is appropriate to apply the Godinez decision retroactively to hold, as we have in the preceding discussion of the Faretta motion, that the trial court, having found defendant competent to stand trial, erred in determining nonetheless that defendant was not sufficiently competent to waive his right to the assistance of counsel. (As discussed above, we uphold the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to represent himself, on grounds other than his competence to do so.) We may not, however, also apply the Godinez decision retroactively to conclude that because the trial court found defendant incompetent to waive counsel in ruling on the Faretta motion, it necessarily also had a doubt, or should have had a doubt, as to his competence to stand trial and should have conducted a competence hearing pursuant to section 1368. Two reasons preclude such a holding. First, to do so in effect would elevate the standard of mental capacity to stand trial to the higher level of mental capacity that the trial court obviously believed necessary for defendant to be permitted to represent himself. The trial court specifically stated that it found defendant competent to stand trial. As we have seen, the trial court's discussion of defendant's competence in the context of the Faretta motion, relied upon by defendant to establish substantial evidence of incompetence to stand trial, emphasizes the court's determination that defendant was not capable of presenting an adequate defense. Although the trial court erred in requiring that defendant possess some minimal legal ability in order to be allowed to represent himself, that error precludes our equating its findings regarding competence in that sense, with findings regarding competence to stand trial  because it is clear the trial court applied a standard of actual competence to represent oneself that was higher than that deemed necessary for competence to stand trial. Additionally, as explained above, the trial court's examination of defendant's competence in the context of the Faretta motion suggests it was simultaneously examining whether defendant had a realization of the probable risks and consequences of his action, that is, whether the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary. ( Godinez, supra, 509 U.S. at p. 400, 113 S.Ct. 2680.) Because the trial court's findings clearly suggest that the court was assessing these additional factors, its ultimate determination that defendant was not competent to represent himself reflected a more demanding standard and a wider set of factors than was appropriate for the determination of defendant's competence to stand trial. Second, for us to apply the Godinez decision simultaneously to conclude that the trial court erred in imposing upon defendant an elevated standard of competence to waive the assistance of counsel, and that the trial court erred in failing to declare a doubt as to defendant's competence to stand trial based upon its own erroneously elevated standard of competence, would be to improperly derive two distinct conclusions of error from a single erroneous determination. Accordingly, we may not conclude as a matter of law that the trial court's determination that defendant was incompetent to waive his right to the assistance of counsel must be equated with a determination that a doubt existed as to defendant's competence to stand trial. Thus, we next consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to declare a doubt as to defendant's competence to stand trial, in light of the evidence before it. When the evidence casting doubt on an accused's present competence is less than substantial, the following rules govern the application of section 1368. It is within the discretion of the trial judge whether to order a competence hearing. When the trial court's declaration of a doubt is discretionary, it is clear that more is required to raise a doubt than mere bizarre actions ( People v. Kroeger (1964) 61 Cal.2d 236, 243-244 [37 Cal.Rptr. 593, 390 P.2d 369]) or bizarre statements ( People v. Williams (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 389, 398 [45 Cal.Rptr. 427]) or statements of defense counsel that defendant is incapable of cooperating in his defense ( People v. Dailey (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 101, 108-109 [345 P.2d 558]) or psychiatric testimony that defendant is immature, dangerous, psychopathic, or homicidal or such diagnosis with little reference to defendant's ability to assist in his own defense ( People v. Jensen [(1954)] 43 Cal.2d 572, 579 [275 P.2d 25]). ( People v. Laudermilk (1967) 67 Cal.2d 272, 285, 61 Cal.Rptr. 644, 431 P.2d 228.) In the present case, the circumstances noted by the courtthat defendant and his counsel did not agree on which defense to employ, and that defendant had a paranoid distrust of the judicial system and had stated his counsel was in league with the prosecutionwhile suggesting the trial court could have ordered a hearing on competence to stand trial, do not establish that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to do so, justifying reversal on that basis. For all of these reasons, we conclude that the trial court's determination that defendant was incompetent to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to the assistance of counsel may not be equated with a determination that a doubt existed as to defendant's competence to stand trial. We conclude that the trial court's findings in determining that defendant was incompetent to waive counsel do not constitute substantial evidence of defendant's incompetence to stand trial, mandating a hearing under section 1368. We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not declaring a doubt as to defendant's competence to stand trial. Defendant urges that, at this juncture, his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to seek a determination of his client's competence to stand trial. A defendant who asserts he has received ineffective assistance of counsel must establish both that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the defendant suffered prejudice as a result. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 693-694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.) In the present case, prior to determination of the Faretta motion, defense counsel referred to the possibility of pursuing a motion pursuant to section 1368. The trial court subsequently specifically remarked that it found defendant competent to stand trial. In view of the circumstances that the trial court was not required to order a competence hearing based merely upon counsel's perception that his or her client may be incompetent to stand trial ( People v. Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 953, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183), as well as the absence of substantial evidence of defendant's incompetence, defendant cannot establish prejudice from the failure of his attorney to seek a determination of defendant's competence. Defendant, citing Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) 470 U.S. 68, 82-83, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (requiring that access to psychiatric assistance be provided to indigent defendants upon a threshold showing that it will be necessary for an adequate defense or that insanity will be an issue), urges that the failure to offer psychiatric evidence of defendant's incompetence denied him his constitutional right to psychiatric assistance. As is apparent, defendant was afforded access to psychiatric assistance.