27 Cal. App. 5th 195
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Karen Sims, a former attorney with a long history of severe mental illness, was convicted of murdering her husband in 2006 and sentenced to 50 years to life; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 2008.
- Before trial, a 2005 competency evaluation (Dr. Kania) found Sims delusional but competent to stand trial, warning she could decompensate off medication; trial court found her competent.
- Sims moved to represent herself (Faretta); the court granted the Faretta motion and she conducted much of her own defense, making numerous bizarre statements and theories in court.
- Advisory counsel Michael DeFrank declares he twice attempted to inform the trial court that Sims’s mental state had deteriorated and to raise a doubt as to competence, but the court would not let him speak; this declaration is outside the trial record.
- Sims filed successive habeas petitions alleging she was incompetent between August–December 2006 and that the court should have suspended proceedings for further competency evaluation; the California Supreme Court issued orders to show cause twice, and this Court grants the petition and remands for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sims) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proceedings should have been suspended for a new competency hearing between Aug–Dec 2006 | Advisory counsel tried to notify court of Sims’s decompensation; the court refused to hear him, so the court lacked evidence it needed to address competence | Trial judge never stated a doubt on the record; substantial evidence supported initial competency finding | Grant petition: factual dispute (DeFrank’s declaration) requires evidentiary hearing to decide if there was substantial evidence of incompetence during that period |
| Timeliness / laches of the habeas petition | Delay excused because claim rests on facts outside the record (advisory counsel’s declaration) and may show fundamental miscarriage of justice | Petition is untimely and should be barred as delayed or successive | Court exercised exception to delay given potential miscarriage of justice and facts not available on direct appeal; will address merits |
| Successive / duplicative claim bar | Current claim differs from direct appeal (focuses on post-Faretta deterioration and refusal to hear advisory counsel) | Issue of competence was raised on direct appeal; petition is duplicative under Dixon/Waltreus | Not barred: petition raises distinct, outside-the-record facts that were not adjudicated on the merits previously |
| Standard for ordering competency proceedings | A judge must suspend proceedings and hold a competency hearing when presented with substantial evidence raising a bona fide doubt about competence, including advisory counsel’s concerns | Court had discretion; did not express a doubt and relied on earlier competency finding | Court concluded objective in-court behavior plus advisory counsel’s alleged efforts could meet the substantial-evidence threshold; remand for hearing to resolve factual disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (self-representation competence may be more demanding than competence to stand trial)
- People v. Rogers, 39 Cal.4th 826 (2006) (mental illness alone insufficient to require competency hearing)
- People v. Murdoch, 194 Cal.App.4th 230 (2011) (court must order competency hearing when record facts—history, medication noncompliance, bizarre conduct—raise bona fide doubt)
- In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (1993) (successive/untimely habeas claims and miscarriage-of-justice exception)
- People v. Lightsey, 54 Cal.4th 668 (2012) (advisory counsel may properly raise doubt about defendant competence)
- People v. Leonard, 40 Cal.4th 1370 (2007) (second competency hearing required only upon substantial change or new evidence)
- In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770 (1998) (petitioner must explain delay; exceptions narrow)