13 Cal.App.5th 233
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2009 Taitano was charged with multiple serious felonies and later found incompetent to stand trial; the court committed him for restoration treatment under Penal Code §1370.
- Atascadero State Hospital later reported there was no substantial likelihood Taitano would regain competence; he was returned to court for conservatorship consideration, but the Contra Costa Public Guardian declined to file a Murphy conservatorship petition.
- Taitano completed the statutory maximum commitment period (three years) without restoration and sought release by writ of habeas corpus; the trial court granted the writ and ordered release, concluding §1368 did not authorize a new competency hearing.
- The People appealed, arguing the trial court could order a new competency hearing under Penal Code §1368 based on post-commitment evaluations and changed circumstances.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding (1) §1370 sets the exclusive return-to-court procedures after commitment and does not authorize a competency hearing at the end of the maximum term or after a “no substantial likelihood” finding, and (2) §1368 does not authorize a new competency hearing in these circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Taitano) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1368 authorizes a new competency hearing after defendant was adjudicated incompetent, facility found no substantial likelihood of restoration, Public Guardian declined conservatorship, and defendant served statutory maximum commitment | §1368 permits reinitiating competency proceedings when new evidence/changed circumstances arise, even after commitment period | §1368 does not apply once defendant has been committed and served the maximum statutory term; release is required under §1370 | Court: No. §1368 does not authorize a competency hearing in these circumstances; orders affirmed |
| Whether §1370 itself authorizes a competency hearing upon return after a “no substantial likelihood” finding or after serving the maximum commitment term | (People did not rely on §1370 to authorize hearing here) | §1370 prescribes return-to-court procedures (conservatorship inquiry or release) and does not provide for a competency hearing at those junctures | Court: §1370 does not authorize a competency hearing except where it expressly does (e.g., 18-month review) |
| Whether the court may imply authority to hold a competency hearing from §1370(d) (dismissal remains permissive) | §1370(d) leaves the action “subject to dismissal,” implying the court must be able to reassess competence so dismissal need not be mandatory | §1370(d) does not imply authority to conduct competency hearings; dismissal power is permissive and unrelated | Court: No implied authority; §1370(d) does not authorize a competency hearing |
| Whether preexisting case law supports reopening competency under §1368 after an earlier adjudication of incompetence and commitment | Cited older cases where competency was revisited after changed circumstances (Murrell, Zatko, Jones) | Those cases concern defendants previously adjudicated competent while prosecution remained active; they don’t control here | Court: Cases are inapposite; §1368-based re-hearings addressed situations where prosecution was active and prior finding was competence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ary, 51 Cal.4th 510 (2011) (due process bars trial of incompetents)
- In re Davis, 8 Cal.3d 798 (1973) (limits on indefinite commitment for incompetence; reasonable period to determine restoration)
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) (due process limits on commitment duration for incompetence)
- People v. Quiroz, 244 Cal.App.4th 1371 (2016) (trial court exceeded authority by convening competency hearing after hospital’s no-likelihood finding and end-of-term return)
- Conservatorship of Hofferber, 28 Cal.3d 161 (1980) (discusses conservatorship and competence determinations)
- People v. Murrell, 196 Cal.App.3d 822 (1987) (reinitiating §1368 proceedings warranted only upon substantially new evidence or changed circumstances)
- People v. Jones, 15 Cal.4th 119 (1997) (court need not suspend proceedings for second competency hearing unless substantial change/new evidence casts doubt on prior finding)