Court Opinion

ID: 9896293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:05:24.024323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:38.250365
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/9/23 P. v. Pickens CA2/7
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                        SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                     DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,                                                B320704

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                         (Los Angeles County
                                                           Super. Ct. ZM066139)
         v.

B. PICKENS,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Robert S. Harrison and Terrance T. Lewis,
Judges. Reversed and remanded with directions.
      Jean Matulis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Michael J.
Wise, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                         ______________
       B. Pickens1 appeals from the trial court’s April 27, 2022
order committing her to the Department of State Hospitals
following its February 18 finding she was not competent to stand
trial. Pickens contends on appeal the trial court erred in
committing her to a state hospital for treatment because she had
been released on her own recognizance nine months earlier and
was not in pretrial custody at the time of issuance of the
commitment order.
       During the pendency of this appeal, the superior court
granted Pickens pretrial diversion, finding she was suitable for
mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36.2 We
therefore can no longer grant Pickens effective relief regardless of
the validity of the prior commitment order. Even if the superior
court in the future terminates diversion and reinstates criminal
proceedings, the court would need at that time to make a
determination of Pickens’s mental competence, and, if Pickens is
found not to be competent, the court would need to make a new
finding as to the appropriate placement for treatment. Because
dismissing Pickens’s appeal as moot would have the effect of
affirming the commitment order (without addressing the merits),
we reverse the order and remand to the superior court to vacate
the order as moot.

1     Although the appellate briefing refers to Pickens by her full
name, we identify her as B. Pickens to protect her privacy. (See
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(3).)
2     Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                 2
      BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A.     The Complaint
       The felony complaint filed on May 18, 2021 charged
Pickens with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1);
count 1), felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a); count 2); and
misdemeanor battery (§ 242; count 3). Pickens was held to
answer on the charges (§ 872, subd. (a)) and was released on her
own recognizance.
       According to an April 26, 2022 report from the California
Department of State Hospitals Conditional Release Program
(CONREP), Pickens had been involved in a two-year dating
relationship that ended with the prior boyfriend obtaining a
restraining order against Pickens. With respect to the assault
with a deadly weapon charge, on May 16, 2021 Pickens went to
the home of her ex-boyfriend, where (according to the ex-
boyfriend), Pickens “produced a six-inch, curved, orange metal
pipe from her handbag and began to ‘erratically swing the metal
pipe across her body’ approximately 25 times, striking him
approximately 10 times on the face, arms, and back, causing a
laceration on his forehead and a contusion on his forearm.”

B.     The Competency Proceedings
       On October 4, 2021 defense counsel declared a doubt as to
Pickens’s competence to stand trial. The superior court
suspended criminal proceedings under section 1368,
subdivision (a), and transferred the case to the mental health
division of the superior court. The court appointed two doctors to
evaluate Pickens’s mental competence, and both opined Pickens

                                3
was not competent to stand trial. Pickens remained out of
custody on her own recognizance.
      On February 18, 2022 the superior court admitted the
doctors’ reports and found Pickens was not mentally competent to
stand trial.3 The court ordered that the criminal proceedings
remain suspended. The court further ordered that CONREP
evaluate Pickens and recommend an appropriate placement.
      CONREP’s April 26, 2022 report recommended placement
of Pickens in the Department of State Hospitals. The report
stated a doctor from CONREP evaluated Pickens by
videoconference and reviewed available documents. The report
concluded Pickens had a “chaotic history of instability and
delusional ideation . . . coupled with continuous disregard for
psychiatric treatment.” The report concluded Pickens remained
“under an impenetrable delusional framework, highlighting her
need for a higher level of care and placement on psychotropic
medications to allow for a reality-based approach to her case and
needed competency restoration treatment.” The report added
that Pickens was “unsuitable for outpatient treatment at
Gateways CONREP” and required a safe and secure setting for
competency restoration. CONREP recommended Pickens
“receive competency training in a locked forensic setting
approved by the Department of State Hospitals” to restore her to
competency. (Boldface and underlining omitted.) The report
noted that Pickens denied she had a mental illness or took
psychotropic medications.

3    Judge Terrance T. Lewis handled the proceedings in the
mental health court through the April 27, 2022 issuance of the
commitment order.

                                4
      Based on the CONREP report, on April 27, 2022 the
superior court ordered Pickens committed to the Department of
Mental Health for placement at the Department of State
Hospitals, with a maximum commitment date of April 27, 2024.
Further, the court ordered the Department of State Hospitals to
admit Pickens no later than May 25, 2022. Pending placement,
the court ordered Pickens to remain on her own recognizance.
Pickens timely appealed the commitment order.4

C.     Post-commitment Events
       A July 27, 2022 minute order notes Pickens was
number 768 on the statewide waiting list for placement in the
Department of State Hospitals. Pickens remained out of custody
on her own recognizance.
       On January 11, 2023 the superior court5 granted Pickens
diversion under section 1001.36, subd. (b), finding she was
eligible and suitable for mental health diversion. The court
ordered Pickens to comply with the treatment plan and take all
medication prescribed by a doctor.6

4     Pickens’s notice of appeal stated she was appealing a
March 29, 2022 order. In light of Pickens’s opening brief, we
construe her appeal as taken from the April 27, 2022
commitment order.
5     Judge Robert S. Harrison.
6     We granted Pickens’s December 7, 2022 motion to augment
the record with the July 27, 2022 minute order. We deemed
Pickens’s March 21, 2023 motion to augment the record with the
January 11, 2023 order a motion for judicial notice, which we also
granted.

                                  5
                          DISCUSSION

A.     Governing Law
       1.     Mental competence to stand trial
       “The due process guarantees of both the federal and state
Constitutions forbid the trial of a criminal defendant while he or
she is mentally incompetent.” (People v. Buenrostro (2018)
6 Cal.5th 367, 385; accord, People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181,
194-196; see § 1367, subd. (a) [“A person shall not be tried or
adjudged to punishment . . . while that person is mentally
incompetent.”].) Section 1367, subdivision (a), provides that a
“defendant is mentally incompetent . . . if, as a result of a mental
health 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.”
       After the trial court has declared a doubt as to a
defendant’s mental competency, section 1369, subdivision (a)(1),
requires “[t]he court [to] appoint a psychiatrist or licensed
psychologist, and any other expert the court may deem
appropriate, to examine the defendant.” Section 1369 provides
for a trial by the court or a jury of the question of mental
competence. If the defendant is found not mentally competent to
stand trial, the trial proceedings “shall be suspended until the
person becomes mentally competent.” (§ 1370, subd. (a)(1)(B).)
Section 1370, subdivision (a)(1)(B)(i), provides that the court
shall order the mentally incompetent defendant to a State
Department of State Hospitals facility, a public or private
treatment facility, including a community-based residential
treatment program, or placed on outpatient status pursuant to
section 1600. Further, prior to making this determination, the

                                 6
court must order the community program director or a designee
(here, CONREP) to evaluate the defendant and prepare a written
recommendation as to the appropriate placement for treatment.
(§ 1370, subd. (a)(2)(A)(i).)
       Section 1601, subdivision (a), provides, “When a person
charged with and found incompetent on a charge of, convicted of,
or found not guilty by reason of insanity of [listed violent felonies]
or any felony involving death, great bodily injury, or an act which
poses a serious threat of bodily harm to another person, outpatient
status under this title shall not be available until that person has
actually been confined in a state hospital or other treatment
facility for 180 days or more after having been committed under
the provisions of law specified in Section 1600, unless the court
finds a suitable placement, including, but not limited to, an
outpatient placement program, that would provide the person
with more appropriate mental health treatment and the court
finds that the placement would not pose a danger to the health or
safety of others, including, but not limited to, the safety of the
victim and the victim’s family.” (Italics added.)

       2.    Mental health diversion
       “Section 1001.36 gives trial courts the discretion to grant
pretrial diversion for individuals suffering from certain mental
health disorders.” (People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 626;
accord, People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 813.) “‘Pretrial
diversion’ means the postponement of prosecution, either
temporarily or permanently, at any point in the judicial process
from the point at which the accused is charged until adjudication,
to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment.”
(§ 1001.36, subd. (f)(1).) Pretrial diversion may be granted to a

                                  7
mentally incompetent defendant. (§ 1370, subd. (a)(1)(B)(iv) &
(v).)
       Under section 1001.36, as amended effective January 1,
2023, if a defendant is charged with a qualifying offense,7 he or
she is eligible for pretrial diversion if two criteria are met: (1) he
or she has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental disorder, and
(2) the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the
charged offense. (§ 1001.36, subd. (b)(1) & (2).) The statute
further provides that a defendant is suitable for diversion if (1) in
the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s
symptoms would respond to mental health treatment; (2) the
defendant consents to diversion and waives his or her speedy
trial right (unless a defendant cannot consent or provide a waiver
because of his or her mental incompetence); (3) the defendant
agrees to comply with treatment (unless a mentally incompetent
defendant is unable to agree to comply with treatment); and
(4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to
public safety if treated in the community. (§ 1001.36, subd. (c)(1)-
(4).)
       If the above criteria are met, and the “court is satisfied that
the recommended inpatient or outpatient program of mental
health treatment will meet the specialized mental health
treatment needs of the defendant,” the court may order pretrial
diversion and refer the defendant to inpatient or outpatient
mental health resources for up to two years. (§ 1001.36,
subd. (f)(1)(A) & (C)(i).) “If the defendant has performed
satisfactorily in diversion, at the end of the period of diversion,

7     A defendant may not be placed into a diversion program for
murder, manslaughter or certain enumerated sex offenses.
(§ 1001.36, subd. (d).)

                                  8
the court shall dismiss the defendant’s criminal charges that
were the subject of the criminal proceedings at the time of the
initial diversion.” (Id., subd. (h).)
       If, however, the defendant commits an additional
misdemeanor or felony, engages in specified criminal conduct, or
otherwise performs unsatisfactorily in the diversion program, the
trial court may reinstate the criminal proceedings. (§ 1001.36,
subd. (g)(1)-(4).) If the trial court terminates diversion and
reinstates criminal proceedings, “the court shall, pursuant to
Section 1369, appoint a psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or any
other expert the court may deem appropriate, to determine the
defendant’s competence to stand trial.” (§ 1370,
subd. (a)(1)(B)(v).)

B.     Pickens’s Appeal Is Moot
       “A court is tasked with the duty ‘“to decide actual
controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and
not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions,
or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the
matter in issue in the case before it.”’” (In re D.P. (2023)
14 Cal.5th 266, 276.) “A case becomes moot when events
‘“render[] it impossible for [a] court, if it should decide the case in
favor of plaintiff, to grant [the plaintiff] any effect[ive] relief.”’
[Citation.] For relief to be ‘effective,’ two requirements must be
met. First, the plaintiff must complain of an ongoing harm.
Second, the harm must be redressable or capable of being
rectified by the outcome the plaintiff seeks.” (Id. at p. 276.)
       In her supplemental brief, Pickens contends her appeal has
not become moot because if we dismiss the appeal, the
commitment order will be “effectively hanging over appellant

                                   9
while she remains on diversion and by statute, subject to
potential termination of diversion status.” We agree with the
People that Pickens’s appeal is moot because we cannot provide
her any effective relief.
        On appeal, Pickens contends the April 26, 2022 CONREP
evaluation recommending Pickens be committed to the state
hospital for treatment did not provide a sufficient basis for its
conclusion Pickens needed to be confined for treatment instead of
outpatient treatment. Pickens cites from the report, challenging
its findings that Pickens had exhibited “‘concerning beliefs and
threatening behaviors,’” refused to live at the CONREP facility
during treatment, and would not be willing to take medication if
prescribed. Pickens argues there was no “justifiable basis to
require confinement as a condition of receiving competency
treatment,” and further, the order of confinement violated her
constitutional right to be free from pretrial custody. Even if we
were to agree with Pickens that CONREP’s April 2022 report did
not support confinement, we could not provide her effective relief
because the report will not be the basis of any future confinement
if the trial court later terminates her diversion.
        As discussed, if the trial court terminates diversion and
reinstates criminal proceedings, the court is required to appoint a
medical expert to determine whether Pickens is competent to
stand trial. (§ 1370, subd. (a)(1)(B)(v).) This determination will
be made based on conditions present at the time of termination of
diversion. And if Pickens is again found not competent to stand
trial, the court will be required to obtain a new CONREP report
to evaluate Pickens and recommend an appropriate placement for
treatment, whether inpatient or outpatient. (§ 1370,
subd. (a)(2)(A)(i).) Moreover, section 1370,

                                10
subdivision (a)(2)(A)(ii), provides, effective July 1, 2023, that “a
defendant shall first be considered for placement in an outpatient
treatment program, a community treatment program, or a
diversion program, if any such program is available, unless a
court, based upon the recommendation of the community
program director or their designee, finds that either the clinical
needs of the defendant or the risk to community safety, warrant
placement in a State Department of State Hospitals facility.”
      Accordingly, contrary to Pickens’s contention, she does not
have the April 27, 2022 commitment order hanging over her
head. Any future commitment will need to be based on a new
order finding her not competent to stand trial and a subsequent
CONREP report recommending inpatient placement for
treatment. And CONREP’s April 2022 report will not be the
basis for any future determination as to treatment. Because we
cannot grant Pickens any effective relief, her appeal is moot. (In
re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 276.)
      However, Pickens argues that it would be unfair to dismiss
her appeal as moot because it would serve as an affirmance of the
underlying commitment order. (Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc. (1964)
62 Cal.2d 129, 134 [because dismissal of an appeal “‘is in effect an
affirmance of the judgment or order appealed from,’” in some
circumstances the appropriate remedy is to reverse the judgment
instead of dismissing the appeal]; Coalition for a Sustainable
Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 939,
945, 947 [directing superior court to dismiss underlying action to
avoid affirmance that would legitimize moot project].) Because
our dismissal would constitute an affirmance of the commitment
order, which we have not addressed on the merits, we reverse the

                                11
order with directions for the trial court to vacate the order as
moot.

                          DISPOSITION

      We reverse the commitment order and remand for the
superior court to vacate the order as moot.

                                            FEUER, J.
We concur:

             PERLUSS, P. J.

             MARTINEZ, J.

                                 12