Opinion ID: 1219316
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inquiry Into Mental Competence

Text: (5) Defendant contends the trial court erroneously failed to inquire sua sponte into defendant's mental competence to stand trial. As noted in the preceding section, defendant cites no persuasive evidence of incompetence at the penalty retrial. When called by Attorney Landau to present evidence in mitigation, Dr. Bolger testified that defendant appeared to have been on drugs and depressed at the time of the offenses. Defendant's sisters corroborated defendant's depressed state of mind during the period preceding the murders. None of this evidence reflects, however, on defendant's competence at the time of the penalty retrial. Moreover, as we observed in Deere I, defendant's opposition to the presentation of mitigating evidence does not necessarily demonstrate an incompetence to stand trial or to plead guilty. (41 Cal.3d at p. 359.) Defendant also purports to rely on [e]xtensive evidence before the court in advance of trial, by which he means evidence of incompetence allegedly adduced during the preliminary hearing and the guilt phase. As explained earlier, however, defendant overlooks the fact that this court in Deere I rejected the contention that the court erred in failing to hold a competence hearing pursuant to section 1368. Dr. Bolger had testified at trial that defendant was mentally competent, cooperative, stable in mood, possessed a high normal IQ, and displayed excellent judgment as revealed by verbal testing. (41 Cal.3d at p. 358.) The trial court ruled there was no evidence or any possible grounds for convening a formal competence hearing. ( Id. at p. 359.) Hence, we held the trial court did not err in failing to order a competence hearing sua sponte. ( Ibid. ) Contrary to defendant's contention, therefore, the record affords no basis to conclude that the trial court here erred in failing to order a competence hearing sua sponte.