P. v. Robinson
Defendant was sentenced to 26 years to life in prison following his conviction for burglary and petty theft with a prior, and the finding of two strike priors and one prior prison term. He appealed, contending the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel to represent him when the court declared a doubt as to defendants competency. In People v. Robinson (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 606 (Robinson I), this court agreed defendant was entitled to counsel at the competency hearing. We reversed and remanded for a retrospective competency hearing, at which counsel was to be appointed for defendant. If defendant was found to have been competent to stand trial, the judgment would be reinstated. (Robinson I, at p. 619.)On remand the trial court held a retrospective competency hearing, at which defendant was represented by counsel. The court found defendant had been competent at trial and reinstated the judgment. Defendant appeals, contending the denial of his right of self-representation at the retrospective competency hearing was reversible per se and that the trial court erred in excluding defendants lay opinion that he became mentally ill before trial. In a supplemental brief, defendant contends the trial court erred in placing the burden of proof as to his incompetency on defendant. Court affirm. The trial court properly appointed counsel to correct the earlier error, regardless of whether defendant was subsequently competent to waive counsel. Any error in excluding defendants lay opinion was harmless. The trial court did not err in placing the burden of proof of incompetence on defendant.
Comments on P. v. Robinson