<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <br /> <br /> <p><strong>PEOPLE v. KAPLAN</strong></p><br /> <br /> <p>Filed 4/17/07</p><br /> <br /> <p><b>CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b></p><br /> <br /> <p>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA</p><br /> <br /> <p>FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT</p><br /> <br /> <p>DIVISION THREE</p><table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0><tr><td width=319 valign=top><br /> <br /> <p>THE PEOPLE,</p><br /> <br /> <p> Plaintiff and Respondent,</p><br /> <br /> <p> v.</p><br /> <br /> <p>GERALD ARNOLD KAPLAN,</p><br /> <br /> <p> Defendant and Appellant.</p></td><td width=319 valign=top><br /> <br /> <p> G035385</p><br /> <br /> <p> (Super. Ct. No. 02HF0749)</p><br /> <br /> <p> ORDER MODIFYING OPINION<br> AND DENYING PETITION FOR<br> REHEARING; NO CHANGE IN<br> JUDGMENT</p></td></tr></table><br /> <br /> <p>It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 4, 2007, be <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">modified</a> as follows:</p><br /> <br /> <p> 1. On page 3, delete the first full paragraph beginning We remand and insert the following paragraph in its place:</p><br /> <br /> <p>As detailed in the disposition, we remand the matter to the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">trial court</a> to decide whether a <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">retrospective competency hearing</a> should be held to determine defendants competency at the time of trial in November 2003.</p><br /> <br /> <p> 2. On page 19, delete the second paragraph beginning In light of the foregoing and insert the following paragraph in its place:</p><br /> <br /> <p>Because this might be a case in which a retrospective competency hearing should be held, we remand to the trial court with directions as detailed in the disposition.</p><br /> <br /> <p>3. On page 20, delete the paragraph under the heading <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">DISPOSITION</a> and insert the following paragraph in its place:</p><br /> <br /> <p>We reverse the judgment and remand to the trial court with directions to decide whether a retrospective competency hearing should be held to determine whether defendant was competent at the time of trial in November 2003. Should the trial court on remand decide the prosecution has failed to carry its <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">burden of proving</a> that such a retrospective competency hearing should be held, defendant would be entitled to a new trial. If the trial court decides that a retrospective competency hearing should be held, the hearing shall be calendared and held. In the event such a retrospective competency hearing is held and defendant is found to have been competent at the time of trial in November 2003, the trial court shall <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">reinstate the judgment</a> and resentence defendant in accordance with <i>Cunningham v. California, supra,</i> 549 U.S. __ [127 S.Ct. 856]. If, after such hearing, defendant is found not to have been competent at the time of trial in November 2003, defendant would be entitled to a new trial.</p><br /> <br /> <p>These <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">modifications</a> do not effect a change in the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.</p><br /> <br /> <p> FYBEL, J.</p><br /> <br /> <p>WE CONCUR:</p><br /> <br /> <p>SILLS, P. J.</p><br /> <br /> <p>ARONSON, J.</p><br /> <br /> <p>Publication courtesy of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">California free legal advice</a>.</p><br /> <br /> <p>Analysis and review provided by <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.</a></p>