People v. Alejandro G.
205 Cal. App. 4th 472
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Alejandro G. was found competent to stand trial after two psychologists evaluated him.
- The court found true that Alejandro possessed a concealed firearm without a parent present and with various firearm-possession allegations for minors.
- Alejandro appeals asserting error in the competency standard applied, or, alternatively, insufficient evidence supporting competency.
- The court also found a true count for possessing a concealed firearm with additional juvenile-prohibited possession allegations, with count 3 later targeted for strike.
- The unpublished portion remanded to strike count 3 and exercise 702 discretion; the published portion addresses competency standard and its evidence.
- Evidence showed Alejandro was in a car with a loaded gun that had been stolen; he claimed ties to a gang and fear-based possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court used the proper competency standard | Alejandro argues the wrong standard was used. | Alejandro contends substantial evidence fails under the correct standard. | Correct standard applied |
| Whether substantial evidence supports competency | Drs. Barnes and Kelin opined not competent. | Record shows present ability to consult and understand proceedings. | Substantial evidence supports competency |
| Whether count 3 should be stricken as a lesser included offense of count 2 | Count 3 is subsumed by count 2. | Count 3 should not be included or separate. | Count 3 stricken; remand for 702 discretion |
| Which party bears the burden on competency proof | Whether the burden rests with the defense or prosecution. | Burden argument disputed; no impact on outcome. | Court declined to resolve burden allocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Timothy J. v. Superior Court, 150 Cal.App.4th 847 (Cal. App. Dist. 2007) (test for minor competency: present ability to consult and understand proceedings)
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (S. Ct. 1992) (due process limits on competency determinations)
- James H. v. Superior Court, 77 Cal.App.3d 169 (Cal. App. 1978) (juvenile court’s power to determine mental competence)
- Samuel v. California, 29 Cal.3d 489 (Cal. 1981) (substantial evidence review of competence; contrasted with present case)
- In re Christopher F., 194 Cal.App.4th 462 (Cal. App. 2011) (burden on competency proof in juvenile proceedings (discussion))