13 Cal. App. 5th 233
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Defendant Jordan Taitano was found incompetent to stand trial after a §1369 hearing and committed for restoration; Atascadero State Hospital later reported no substantial likelihood of restoration.
- The commitment process under Penal Code §1370 includes periodic reports, an 18‑month mandatory return for a §1369 hearing, and a three‑year maximum commitment after which the defendant is returned to court for possible conservatorship or release.
- The Contra Costa Public Guardian determined Taitano was not gravely disabled and did not file a Murphy conservatorship petition; Taitano completed his maximum commitment term.
- The People sought a new competency hearing (relying on §1368) based on new evidence and evaluations after commitment; the trial court ordered a reevaluation but ultimately denied a new §1369 competency trial and granted habeas relief releasing Taitano.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: it held §1370 does not authorize a competency hearing at the end of the maximum commitment term and §1368 does not provide authority to convene a new competency hearing in these circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1368 authorizes a new competency hearing after (a) a facility reports no substantial likelihood of restoration, (b) public guardian declines Murphy conservatorship, and (c) defendant has served the maximum commitment term | §1368 permits courts to reopen competency inquiry when new evidence or changed circumstances arise, even after commitment, so a new §1369 hearing may be ordered | Once committed and the statutory procedures of §1370 have run (including no conservatorship and max term served), §1368 no longer applies and court must release defendant | Held: §1368 does not authorize a new competency hearing in these circumstances; §1370 governs and provides only conservatorship review or release at the end of the commitment term |
| Whether §1370 itself authorizes a competency hearing at termination of the commitment period | N/A (People relied on §1368 instead) | §1370 returns defendant to court for conservatorship determination or release; it does not authorize a new competency hearing at max term | Held: §1370 does not authorize a competence hearing at end of maximum commitment term |
| Whether court may imply authority to hold a competency hearing based on §1370(d) and dismissal power under §1385 | Court argued dismissal remains discretionary, implying court could reassess competence to avoid mandatory release | Court held §1370(d) merely preserves dismissal power; it does not imply authority to hold an otherwise unauthorized competency hearing | Held: No implied authority; statutory scheme controls and gaps cannot be filled by implication |
| Remedy/prosecutorial options after release | People argued statutes should allow post‑release competency reassessment to permit prosecution if competence returns | Defendant argued release is required and prosecution cannot force new competence hearing under existing statutes | Held: Court declined to create a post‑release competency hearing; left policy changes to Legislature; note: concurrence cautioned this should not be read as permanently foreclosing prosecution by other procedural means |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ary, 51 Cal.4th 510 (clarifying that incompetent defendants cannot be tried)
- In re Davis, 8 Cal.3d 798 (holding commitment pending restoration cannot exceed a reasonable period and directing release or LPS proceedings when no reasonable likelihood of restoration exists)
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (constitutional limit on indefinite commitment of defendants incompetent to stand trial)
- People v. Quiroz, 244 Cal.App.4th 1371 (trial court exceeded jurisdiction by convening a competency hearing after hospital found no substantial likelihood of restoration)
- In re Polk, 71 Cal.App.4th 1230 (discussing 1974 statutory amendments responding to Davis)
- People v. Murrell, 196 Cal.App.3d 822 (second competency hearing may be required when new evidence or changed circumstances arise after a finding of competence)
- People v. Zatko, 80 Cal.App.3d 534 (court must inquire into competency when new evidence or changed circumstances cast doubt on prior finding)
- Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (government interest in bringing to trial individuals accused of serious crimes relevant in competency/medication context)
- Conservatorship of Hofferber, 28 Cal.3d 161 (Supreme Court dicta suggesting court may redetermine competence when defendant is returned after maximum commitment)