P. v. Weir CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment and order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. MH107755;SCD241752;SCD241929;SCD242246
- Trial judge
- Frederick Maguire
- Outcome
- reversed — Reversed and remanded.
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith D. McConnell, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court found the defendant mentally incompetent to stand trial and ordered his commitment based on a single expert's report, despite the defendant's personal objections. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded the case because the trial court failed to appoint a second examining expert as required by statute when the defendant objected to the finding of incompetence.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of mental incompetency and order of commitment“The court is required to appoint a second examining psychiatrist or psychologist "[i]n any case where the defendant or the defendant's counsel informs the court that the defendant is not seeking a finding of mental incompetence." (§ 1369, subd. (a).)” | de novo | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court The opinion states that the court is required to appoint a second expert under Penal Code section 1369, subdivision (a) when the defendant informs the court they are not seeking a finding of mental incompetence. Since Weir raised repeated personal objections, the statutory requirement was triggered, and the failure to appoint a second expert was reversible error. |
Authorization for involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication“This contention is moot. On May 16, 2013, this court issued a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate that portion of its October 10, 2012, order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication, and to set the matter for further hearing.” | mixed | not reached | agree with court The appellate court declined to review the sufficiency of the evidence for the medication order because a prior writ of mandate had already directed the trial court to vacate that specific portion of the order and hold a new hearing, rendering the issue moot on this appeal. |
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies the statutory mandate in Penal Code section 1369, subdivision (a) and applies it to the facts where the defendant objected to the competency finding. It properly dismisses the medication issue as moot due to the prior writ of mandate.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, relying on a single psychiatrist's report and over Weir's repeated personal objections, found Weir mentally incompetent to stand trial, authorized involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication, and committed him to Patton State Hospital for up to three years. The Court of Appeal, accepting the People's concession, reversed the incompetency judgment and commitment order because the trial court failed to appoint a second examining expert as Penal Code section 1369, subdivision (a) requires when the defendant informs the court he is not seeking an incompetence finding, and deemed the medication challenge moot in light of an earlier writ of mandate.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding of mental incompetency (§ 1368) and three-year commitment to Patton State Hospital based on one expert's report, without appointing a second examining psychiatrist or psychologist despite the defendant's personal objections to an incompetence finding“The court is required to appoint a second examining psychiatrist or psychologist "[i]n any case where the defendant or the defendant's counsel informs the court that the defendant is not seeking a finding of mental incompetence." (§ 1369, subd. (a).)” | unclear | error (procedure) | agree with court Section 1369(a) by its terms is triggered when either the defendant or defense counsel informs the court the defendant is not seeking a finding of incompetence. Weir repeatedly and personally objected to the finding, so the mandatory duty to appoint a second expert arose and the court proceeded on a single report from an expert who could not even examine Weir. The People conceded the error, and the statutory text supports the conclusion. The opinion does not discuss prejudice or harmless error, but given the concession and the thinness of the evidentiary basis, reversal is defensible. |
Order authorizing involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication, challenged as lacking factual findings and evidentiary support“This contention is moot. On May 16, 2013, this court issued a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate that portion of its October 10, 2012, order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication, and to set the matter for further hearing.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court had already vacated the medication portion of the order through a writ of mandate and directed a further hearing, so no live controversy remained on this claim. Treating the issue as moot is consistent with ordinary appellate practice; the court did not need to reach the merits. |
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the plain text of Penal Code section 1369, subdivision (a), which mandates a second expert when the defendant personally informs the court he is not seeking an incompetence finding, and the People's concession makes the result straightforward. It is extremely brief, cites no case law, states no standard of review, and performs no prejudice or harmless-error analysis, so it reaches a defensible result while leaving analytical gaps.
Opinion
Filed 6/27/13 P. v. Weir 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, D063067
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. MH107755; SCD241752; SCD241929; ZACHARY L. WEIR, SCD242246)
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frederick Maguire, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Julie L. Garland, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Three complaints, filed in July 2012, charged Zachary Weir with possessing cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)); being under the influence of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)); resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1));1 giving false information to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)); public intoxication (§ 647, subd. (f)); false personation (§ 529, subd. (a)(3)); using personal identifying information of another (§ 530.5, subd. (a)); three counts of burglary (§ 459);
obtaining personal identifying information of 10 or more individuals with intent to defraud (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(3)); acquiring access cards of four or more persons (§ 484e, subd. (b)); and using an access card to defraud (§ 484g). The complaints alleged Weir had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On August 9, 2012, the court suspended criminal proceedings and ordered a mental competency examination of Weir (§ 1368). On September 25, psychiatrist Michael Takamura attempted to examine Weir, who refused to be examined. Dr.
Takamura reviewed Weir's medical records and concluded he suffered from a severe mental disorder and was likely not competent to stand trial.
On October 10, 2012, Weir's counsel stipulated to Dr. Takamura's qualifications.
Over Weir's repeated personal objections, the court found, based on Dr. Takamura's report, Weir was not mentally competent to stand trial and lacked capacity to make a decision regarding the antipsychotic medication he needed. The court entered a judgment of mental incompetency, authorized the involuntary administration of antipsychotic 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 medication and ordered Weir committed to Patton State Hospital for a maximum term of three years.
Weir appeals, contending the court erred by not appointing a second medical expert to evaluate him. The People properly concede the point. The court is required to appoint a second examining psychiatrist or psychologist "[i]n any case where the defendant or the defendant's counsel informs the court that the defendant is not seeking a finding of mental incompetence." (§ 1369, subd. (a).) We reverse the judgment of mental incompetency and remand the matter for further proceedings.
Weir also contends the authorization for involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication lacks factual findings and evidentiary support. This contention is moot. On May 16, 2013, this court issued a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate that portion of its October 10, 2012, order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication, and to set the matter for further hearing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of mental incompetency and the order of commitment are reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.