P. v. Negron CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD229481
- Trial judge
- Yvonne E. Campos
- Outcome
- reversed in part — Reversed in part and remanded with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Patricia D. Benke (author), Judith L. Haller, McINTYRE
Analysis
The trial court revoked Negron's probation and sentenced him to prison after finding he was competent, despite ordering a competency evaluation for separate misdemeanor cases heard during the same proceeding. The Court of Appeal reversed the revocation and sentence, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to suspend the instant case for a competency evaluation when substantial evidence of incompetence existed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Trial court's refusal to suspend the probation violation and sentencing hearing for a competency evaluation“Thus, the court abused its discretion in declining to order an evaluation of his mental competence. (People v. Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494, 507.)” | abuse of discretion | error | agree with court agree with court |
Trial court's finding of probation violation and imposition of prison sentence“The sentence must be reversed (People v. Rogers, supra, at p. 847), and the probation violation finding must be reversed as well (People v. Hays (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 755, 759).” | abuse of discretion | error | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826 — A trial judge must suspend proceedings and conduct a competency hearing when presented with substantial evidence of incompetence.
- relied: People v. Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494 — The decision to order a competency evaluation is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- relied: People v. Hays (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 755 — A probation violation finding must be reversed if the underlying proceedings were invalid due to a failure to address competency.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the standard from People v. Rogers, which mandates a competency hearing upon the existence of substantial evidence of incompetence. The court logically concludes that the trial court's inconsistent handling of the misdemeanor cases (where it ordered an evaluation) versus the instant case (where it did not) constitutes an abuse of discretion, rendering the sentence invalid.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court found Negron in violation of probation and sentenced him to a four-year middle term, then moments later in two misdemeanor cases suspended proceedings under Penal Code section 1368 for a competency evaluation, yet let the sentence in this case stand because Negron had appeared rational before his outbursts. The Court of Appeal, with the People's concession, held the same substantial evidence of incompetence required a competency evaluation in this case, reversed the probation revocation order and sentence, and remanded for further proceedings.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Trial court's decision to let the prison sentence stand without ordering a competency evaluation in this case, despite suspending proceedings for a competency evaluation in the misdemeanor cases at the same hearing“The record, summarized above, reflects substantial evidence of Negron's incompetence. Thus, the court abused its discretion in declining to order an evaluation of his mental competence.” | abuse of discretion | error (law misapplied) | agree with court Under Rogers, once substantial evidence raising a bona fide doubt about competence is before the court, suspension of proceedings is mandatory, not discretionary. The record showed a prior diagnosis of manic depression and schizophrenia disclosed to probation, a psychological evaluation already scheduled by the probation department for the next day, bizarre conduct underlying the violation, and in-court statements of hearing voices that the court itself found sufficient to suspend the misdemeanor cases moments later; the court's distinction that Negron had appeared rational before the outbursts cannot reconcile ordering an evaluation in one case and not the other. The People conceded the point. One gap is that the opinion does not address that the sentence was pronounced before the outbursts, but the court expressly revisited and reaffirmed the sentence after the doubt arose, so the result is defensible. |
Probation violation finding made at the same hearing“The sentence must be reversed (People v. Rogers, supra, at p. 847), and the probation violation finding must be reversed as well (People v. Hays (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 755, 759).” | abuse of discretion | error (law misapplied) | agree with court A probation revocation hearing is a proceeding to which the competency requirement applies, so if the court was required to suspend proceedings, the violation finding made while the defendant may have been incompetent cannot stand. The opinion's citation to Hays supports extending the remedy to the revocation finding, and the People did not contest it. The result follows from the first ruling. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826 — Due process and state law require the trial court to suspend proceedings and hold a competency hearing whenever substantial evidence raises a reasonable or bona fide doubt about the defendant's competence; failure to do so requires reversal.
- relied: People v. Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494 — A trial court's decision whether to hold a competency hearing is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to the court's observations of the defendant.
- relied: People v. Hays (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 755 — The competency requirement applies to probation revocation proceedings, so a revocation finding made when a doubt of competence should have been declared must be reversed.
- missed: People v. Hale (1988) 44 Cal.3d 531 — When a trial court fails to hold a required competency hearing, the judgment must be reversed and a retrospective competency determination is generally not an adequate substitute; this bears on the scope of the remand the opinion ordered without discussion.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies Rogers and Ramos to a record in which the trial court itself found grounds to doubt competence moments after sentencing, and the People's concession confirms the result. It does not, however, address the timing problem that the sentence had already been pronounced when the outbursts occurred, nor does it explain what proceedings are permissible on remand given the limits on retrospective competency findings.
Opinion
Filed 4/2/13 P. v. Negron CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D061663
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD229481)
JOSE LUIS NEGRON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Yvonne Esperanza Campos, Judge. Reversed in part and remanded with directions.
In October 2010, Jose Luis Negron entered a negotiated guilty plea to selling a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). On March 18, 2011, Negron told the probation officer that in 2002, he had received a diagnosis of manic depression and schizophrenia. On March 28, 2011, the court placed Negron on three years' probation. On April 15, Negron went to a restaurant where he yelled obscenities, exposed his penis, spilled the contents of his colostomy bag and struck a restaurant employee. On April 25, the court summarily revoked probation. At the request of the probation department, a psychological evaluation was scheduled for June 1.
On May 31, 2011, Negron was before the court for a probation revocation and sentencing hearing in the instant case and a hearing in two misdemeanor cases. In the instant case, the court found Negron had violated probation, revoked probation and sentenced him to prison for the four-year middle term. After a series of outbursts from Negron, the court began the hearing in the misdemeanor cases. During that hearing, Negron said he was crazy and was hearing voices. The court stated that an evaluation of Negron's mental competence was necessary, and noted that before his disruptions, he "appeared to be rational [and] responsive." The court suspended criminal proceedings in the misdemeanor cases (Pen. Code, § 1368) and ordered an evaluation of Negron's mental competence. After a short recess, Negron told the court he had lied and he was not hearing voices. The court repeated that an evaluation was required.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court clerk inquired whether the sentence in the instant case would stand. The court stated that before Negron's "outbursts, he had been compliant, fine and had not exhibited any behavioral quirks or issues and had been responsive." The court concluded "there was no prior basis for questioning or wondering about his competence;" thus, the sentence would stand.
On July 8, 2011, Negron was determined to be mentally incompetent. On July 22, in the misdemeanor cases, the court found he was mentally incompetent and ordered him committed for treatment. On July 28, a staff psychiatrist with the San Diego County 2 Sheriff's Department determined Negron was mentally competent. In August, the court found Negron competent in the misdemeanor cases and reinstated criminal proceedings.
Negron appeals, contending the suspension of criminal proceedings in the misdemeanor cases, during the probation violation and sentencing hearing in the instant case, and the subsequent finding of incompetence in the misdemeanor cases, render invalid the probation violation finding and sentence in the instant case. Respondent properly concedes it "would be hard-pressed to argue that there was substantial evidence of incompetence supporting the trial court's decision to order a competency hearing for purposes of the two misdemeanor cases, but not for purposes of this case, which had been before the court moments earlier."
"A defendant is incompetent to stand trial if he or she lacks a ' "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding— and . . . a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him." ' [Citations.]" (People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 846-847.) "Both federal due process and state law require a trial judge to suspend trial proceedings and conduct a competency hearing whenever the court is presented with substantial evidence of incompetence, that is, evidence that raises a reasonable or bona fide doubt concerning the defendant's competence to stand trial." (Id. at p. 847.) The record, summarized above, reflects substantial evidence of Negron's incompetence. Thus, the court abused its discretion in declining to order an evaluation of his mental competence. (People v. Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494, 507.) The sentence must be reversed (People v. Rogers, 3 supra, at p. 847), and the probation violation finding must be reversed as well (People v. Hays (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 755, 759).
DISPOSITION
The order revoking probation and the prison sentence are reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings with respect to the probation violation and, if necessary, sentencing. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
McINTYRE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Rogers S005502 · 2006-08-21
- People v. Ramos S030956 · 2004-11-29
- People v. Hays Crim. 14515 · 1976-01-23