P. v. Garcia

Filed 12/24/08 P. v. Garcia CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John M. Monterosso, Judge. Affirmed.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

An officer apparently conducted a traffic stop of defendant.^[1] Defendant threw a container of liquid, reportedly beer, at the passenger side window and door of the officers patrol vehicle. Defendant told the officer he did so because he hated cops and warned the officer that if the officer ever stopped defendant again, the officer would die.

The People charged defendant by felony complaint with attempting to deter or prevent an officer from performing his lawful duty (count 1Pen. Code,  69).^[2] In addition, the complaint alleged defendant had sustained two prior prison terms. ( 667.5, subd. (b).)

Defense counsel expressed a doubt regarding defendants mental competency to stand for further proceedings. The court suspended proceedings pursuant to section 1368 and appointed Dr. Harvey Oshrin to psychologically evaluate defendant.

Dr. Oshrin was unable to evaluate defendant because defendant refused to be interviewed by someone from San Diego County since he was being charged in Riverside County. The court later rescinded appointment of Dr. Oshrin and appointed Dr. Stuart Courtney of Riverside County to evaluate defendant.

Dr. Courtney determined that defendant appears to have a fairly reasonable factual understanding of the courtroom proceedings, the pleading process, and the possible outcomes of the charges he is facing. It appears likely that any trial information he is lacking could be explained to him. Nevertheless, Dr. Courtney also noted that defendants rational understanding of the proceedings against him was poor, that his behavior was bizarre, and that he was suspected of having paranoid psychosis due to alleged delusional beliefs. Thus, Dr. Courtney concluded that defendant appeared to be mentally incompetent to stand for further proceedings. Dr. Courtney further recommended that defendant be treated with antipsychotic medication which would likely improve his ability to stand trial.

At a court hearing thereafter, defendant was forcibly removed from court due to his verbal outbursts. The court found defendant mentally incompetent to stand for further proceedings and ordered that he may be treated involuntarily with antipsychotic medications. A subsequent report prepared by the Department of Behavioral Health determined that defendant was not a suitable candidate for an outpatient treatment program and recommended he be sent to Patton State Hospital (PSH) for treatment, until restored to competency. The court ordered defendant placed at PSH.

Defendant was admitted to PSH on January 4, 2008. On February 19, 2008, a doctor at PSH issued a certificate averring that the medical staff had determined defendant was now mentally competent to stand for further court proceedings. The accompanying report indicated that defendant had not been administered any psychotropic medications due to a lack of need. The report, signed by defendants treating psychologist and psychiatrist, as well as the program assistant and the medical director of the facility, concluded that defendant had both [a] rational as well as factual understanding of the charges and legal procedure.

At the competency hearing on February 28, 2008, defense counsel submitted on the report from PSH. The court, therefore, reinstated criminal proceedings. At the settlement conference hearing on March 4, 2008, defense counsel again declared a doubt as to defendants mental competency to stand for further proceedings. Defense counsel noted that although defendant appeared understanding and willing to assist in his defense at the last hearing, defendants demeanor had now completely changed. The court noted that it was required to find that some evidence justified another referral of defendant for an evaluation; thus, the court continued the matter for two days to allow counsel an opportunity to present evidence on the matter.

At the next hearing, defense counsel reiterated doubts as to defendants mental competency. Counsel stated that defendants family had stated that defendant is exhibiting [a] degrading of his mental state[,] that he was hallucinating, and speaking irrationally. Defense counsel noted that while defendant appears to understand the nature of the charges, he does not appear to understand the nature of entering a plea. Defendant now wished to enter into a negotiated plea agreement. The court denied defense counsels request to declare defendant mentally incompetent; although it declared that it would grant a continuance to allow the defense to have its own expert evaluate defendant.

After recessing the matter, the court recalled the case to permit defendant to enter his plea. Defense counsel stated that he did not believe defendant understood the consequences of entering a guilty plea and, therefore, he could not join in the plea. Nevertheless, defense counsel noted that if the court wished to enter the plea, it could make the determination as to whether defendant was competent to do so itself. The court permitted the Peoples oral amendment of the complaint to add a count 2 allegation of criminal threats (count 2 422). Defendant waived arraignment on the amended complaint.

The court then discussed with defendant, in detail, his individual rights and the consequences of entering into the negotiated plea. The court permitted defendant to plead guilty to count 2 in return for a dismissal of the count 1 charge, an apparent dropping of the prior prison term allegations, and imposition of a sentence of the low term of 16 months imprisonment with credit for 331 days. The court noted that it found defendant understands the nature of the charges against him, the consequences of his plea, the plea is free and voluntar[y], and the defendant has knowingly and intelligently waived his rights. The Court accepts the plea and finds a factual basis for it.

Defense counsel signed the portion of the plea agreement which reads, I am the attorney for the defendant. I am satisfied that (1) the defendant understands his/her constitutional rights and understand that guilty plea would be a waiver of these rights; (2) the defendant has had an adequate opportunity to discuss his/her case with me, including any defenses he/she may have to the charges; however, defense counsel crossed out the portion of the plea agreement reading, the defendant understands the consequences of his/her guilty plea. I join in the decision of the defendant to enter a guilty plea. The court, choosing to further elucidate its rationale for permitting defendant to enter the plea in the absence of defense counsels joinder, added, in the examination I just had of [defendant], I find him not only to be extremely bright and animated, but more so than most defendants I exam while taking a plea in this department, so I dont even think it is a close call. I think he clearly understands his right[s] and hes willingly and knowingly waived them and intelligently waived them. The court sentenced defendant in accordance with his plea.

Defendant filed two separate appeals. On the first notice of appeal, defendant indicated he was appealing based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea[,] on the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5[,] and that he was challenging the validity of the plea. Defendant filled out a request for a certificate of probable cause in which he made vague allegations that his case was not strikable and that there had been a misuse of paper work and laws. The court denied the request. In his second notice of appeal, defendant failed to check the box indicating he was challenging the validity of the plea; nevertheless, defendant again submitted a request for a certificate of probable cause. The court, again, denied the request.

Upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

/s/ King

J.

We concur:

/s/ Richli

Acting P.J.

/s/ Miller

J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1] Defendant pled guilty before a preliminary hearing was conducted and waived his right to the preparation of a probation report. Thus, the facts of the case are the best that we can glean from an examination of the entire record.

^[2] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.