Court Opinion

ID: 9388829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 18:02:51.359131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:22.973206
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/21/23 P. v. McGee CA1/2
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                     FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                   DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                        A165873
 v.
 JASON EDWARD McGEE,                                                    (Contra Costa County
                                                                         Super. Ct. No. 04–204018–6)
           Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Jason McGee appeals from orders finding him not
competent to stand trial and committing him to the Department of State
Hospitals pursuant to Penal Code section 1370 et seq.
         Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief setting forth the
applicable facts and law pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40
Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). Appointed counsel informed defendant that he could
file a supplemental brief and that the court would likely dismiss his appeal if
he did not file a supplemental brief. This court provided defendant further
notice, pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231–232, that
his appeal could be dismissed as abandoned if no supplemental brief were
filed within 30 days. Defendant has not filed a timely supplemental brief.
         Our discretionary review of the record discloses no arguable issues, and
we therefore affirm.

                                                               1
                                BACKGROUND
      On March 23, 2022, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a
felony criminal complaint against defendant charging him with two counts of
arson of a structure or forest (Pen. Code,1 § 451, subd. (c)), based on incidents
alleged to have occurred in Antioch on March 18 and March 21, 2022.
      On April 7, 2022, the day scheduled for the preliminary examination,
defense counsel informed the court that defendant wished to represent
himself, and expressed a doubt about defendant’s competence to stand trial.
The court (Hon. Jon R. Rolefson) also expressed a doubt regarding
defendant’s competence and suspended the criminal proceedings pursuant to
section 1368 et seq.
      At a hearing on April 13, 2022, defense counsel reported that defendant
“objects to this process and very much wants this Court to proceed to find him
not guilty today.” The trial court (Hon. Laurel S. Brady) appointed
psychologists Corey Hahn and Melissa Johnson to evaluate defendant and
appointed Donald Siggins as “the backup.”
      All three psychologists prepared evaluations. Dr. Johnson and Dr.
Siggins concluded defendant was competent to stand trial. Dr. Hahn
concluded defendant was not competent to stand trial.
      At a hearing on May 18, 2022, defense counsel submitted the issue of
competency based on the three reports. Defense counsel stated, “. . . Dr.
Hahn’s report is the most comprehensive, and I concur in his . . . conclusion.
[¶] He is the only of the three doctors who has reached out to me for my
input. Additionally, he is the only of the three doctors who reviewed the full
record.” The prosecutor “concur[red] with defense counsel’s analysis and
conclusion of submitting on” the reports.

      1   Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                        2
      The trial court noted that Dr. Siggins was under the impression
defendant was acting as his own attorney, which was not the case. The court
agreed that Dr. Hahn’s report was “much more comprehensive,” observing he
reviewed over a thousand pages of medical records and spoke with defense
counsel “where the other two did not.” The court gave “greater weight to Dr.
Hahn’s report” and found by a preponderance of the evidence, “defendant is
not presently able to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings
taken against him, and is not able to assist and cooperate with counsel in
presenting a defense.”
      The court referred defendant to CONREP (Conditional Release
Program) pursuant to section 1370, subdivision (a)(2)(A).
      Defense counsel said that defendant “very much objects to the Court’s
conclusion, and wants to be found competent.”
      At a hearing on June 29, 2022, the court considered the CONREP
report. Defense counsel told the court defendant continued to object to the
finding that he is incompetent, and he did not consent to medication.
      The trial court (Hon. Laurel S. Brady) ordered defendant committed to
the Department of State Hospitals for a maximum of two years.2 Defendant
did not consent to administration of antipsychotic medication.
      On July 29, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal of the finding of
incompetence and commitment to the Department of State Hospitals.

      2The reporter’s transcript reflects that the trial court stated defendant
was committed to the Department of State Hospitals, “three year max.” The
written order of commitment, however, reflects that the maximum term of
commitment is two years. The written order is correct, as the maximum
commitment is two years. (§ 1370, subd. (c)(1).)

                                       3
                                 DISCUSSION
       In Ben C., our Supreme Court held that “[i]f appointed counsel in a
conservatorship appeal finds no arguable issues, counsel . . . should (1) inform
the court he or she has found no arguable issues to be pursued on appeal; and
(2) file a brief setting out the applicable facts and the law.” (Ben C., supra, 40
Cal.4th at p. 544.) In addition, “[t]he conservatee is to be provided a copy of
the brief and informed of the right to file a supplemental brief.” (Id. at p.
544, fn. 6.) The reviewing court may then dismiss the appeal if there are no
arguable issues. (Id. at p. 544.) The Ben C. procedure applies to appeals of
competency proceedings. (People v. Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020,
1025–1026.)
      Here, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel followed Ben C. and
informed defendant he could file a supplemental brief. This court also gave
defendant notice that his appeal might be dismissed as abandoned if he did
not file a timely supplemental brief, but defendant has not filed such a brief.
      Appointed counsel asks this court “to exercise [our] discretion to review
the short appellate record to confirm proper procedures were followed and
that the order is supported by substantial evidence.” (See Ben C., supra, 40
Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 7 [recognizing an appellate court may choose to retain
an appeal rather than dismiss it].) We have reviewed the record, and the
finding defendant was not competent to stand trial was supported by
substantial evidence. The commitment ordered by the court is authorized by
law and supported by CONREP’s recommendation. Defendant was
represented by able counsel.
                                DISPOSITION
      The orders finding defendant incompetent to stand trial and
committing him to the Department of State Hospitals are affirmed.

                                        4
                                        _________________________
                                        Miller, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Stewart, P.J.

_________________________
Markman, J.*

A165873, People v. McGee

     *Judge of the Alameda Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                    5