P. v. Negron
Filed 4/2/13 P. v. Negron CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JOSE LUIS NEGRON,
Defendant and Appellant.
D061663
(Super. Ct.
No. SCD229481)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Yvonne Esperanza Campos, Judge. Reversed in part and remanded with
directions.
In October
2010, Jose Luis Negron entered a negotiated guilty plea to
& Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)).
On March 18, 2011,
Negron told the probation officer that in 2002, he had received a diagnosis of
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 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.]" (
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, 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.
