In re Sims CA4/2, E075363

Background

Karen Sims, with a long history of serious mental illness, shot and killed her husband in September 2005; she was convicted of murder in August 2006 and sentenced to 50 years to life.
Pretrial evaluator Dr. Kania (2005) diagnosed delusional schizoaffective/bipolar disorder, found Sims technically competent but warned she could decompensate if she refused medication; Sims stopped taking medication in jail and displayed floridly delusional, irrational conduct while representing herself at trial.
Michael DeFrank served as advisory counsel during the homicide trial; he later declared he attempted (twice) to inform the trial judge of doubts about Sims’s competence but was blocked from speaking as advisory counsel; he contemporaneously raised competence concerns on the record in a trailing assault case where he remained counsel of record.
Sims filed multiple habeas petitions raising incompetence; this Court previously remanded for an evidentiary hearing directing counsel to present DeFrank and any relevant mental-health witnesses; the superior court thereafter found DeFrank not credible and denied relief.
The Court of Appeal held that, regardless of DeFrank’s credibility, the trial court—aware of the diagnosis, medication refusal, and Sims’s irrational self-representation—had a duty under Penal Code § 1368 and due process to suspend proceedings and conduct a competence hearing; failure to do so violated Sims’s rights and requires reversal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sims)	Defendant's Argument (People)	Held
Whether the trial court had a duty to suspend proceedings and hold a competency hearing sua sponte during the homicide trial.	Court knew of diagnosis, medication refusal, and observed irrational, delusional self-representation—these facts are substantial evidence triggering a §1368 inquiry.	Prior competency finding and lack of an on-the-record declaration by advisory counsel justified proceeding; no substantial change warranted a new hearing.	Held for Sims: substantial evidence of changed circumstances existed; the court had a duty to suspend and failed to do so—due process violated.
Whether the evidentiary referee properly rejected DeFrank’s testimony and whether his credibility controls the outcome.	DeFrank consistently declared doubts (declaration and later testimony); his contemporaneous on-record statement in the trailing case corroborates him.	DeFrank was biased (later disciplinary history) and thus not credible; the superior court properly discounted him.	Held: Even if DeFrank were discredited, the trial court’s own observations and Dr. Kania’s warnings independently required a competence inquiry; DeFrank’s credibility does not absolve the trial court.
Whether a retrospective competency proceeding or piecemeal habeas resolution is adequate, or whether conviction must be reversed.	Given the failure to suspend and conduct contemporaneous inquiry, conviction while likely incompetent is a jurisdictional due-process error requiring reversal rather than a retrospective fix.	The superior court’s habeas hearing sufficed to resolve the claim.	Held for Sims: reversal required; defendant may be retried if presently competent.
Scope of remand and whether the court needed to consider the trial record beyond DeFrank’s attempts to notify the judge.	Prior remand directed consideration of any substantial evidence of incompetence between Aug–Dec 2006, including trial record and Dr. Kania’s report.	The People argued the superior court correctly limited weight to DeFrank’s testimony and denied relief.	Held: The remand encompassed the trial record and other evidence; the superior court erred by failing to give effect to that record and related precedent.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Rodas, 6 Cal.5th 219 (Cal. 2018) (trial court must order a competency inquiry when a medically restored defendant stops medication and again shows signs of incompetence)
People v. Murdoch, 194 Cal.App.4th 230 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (review based on all relevant facts may require reversal when substantial evidence shows incompetence at trial)
People v. Howard, 1 Cal.4th 1132 (Cal. 1992) (a hearing is required whenever substantial evidence of incompetence appears)
People v. Sundberg, 124 Cal.App.3d 944 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (defendant’s demeanor and irrational behavior constitute evidence of incompetence)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1966) (conviction of an incompetent defendant violates due process)
People v. Pennington, 66 Cal.2d 508 (Cal. 1967) (trial court must conduct competence hearing when doubt arises)