People v. Christopher F.
194 Cal. App. 4th 462
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Petition filed July 14, 2008 under Welfare and Institutions Code §602 alleging Christopher threatened high school dean Jones in violation of Penal Code §422.
- May 13, 2008 incident: Christopher made explicit threats, wrote threatening phrases on his hands, and sent a letter to Jones; police detained him.
- Before trial, defense raised doubt about competency; juvenile court suspended proceedings and ordered a competency hearing; a USC-based mental health expert evaluated Christopher but the court did not appoint the regional center director.
- Dr. Robert Rome evaluated December 14, 2008 and testified Christopher had language-based learning disabilities and could be not competent to participate; the court nonetheless found him competent on July 13, 2009, noting the evaluation was incomplete and considering grades.
- Jurisdiction hearing held October 26, 2009; court sustained the §602 petition, declared Christopher a ward of the court, and ordered probation at home; appeal challenged §1369(a) appointment and sufficiency of competency evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the failure to appoint the regional center director required by §1369(a) was reversible error | Christopher argues appointment was required to evaluate developmentally disabled status | People contend §1369(a) does not apply to juvenile proceedings and failure was harmless | Not reversible error; juvenile practice uses Rule 5.645(d) and other qualified experts suffice |
| Whether appointment of regional center director was necessary to protect due process | Appointment is necessary to safeguard due process for developmentally disabled youths | Other experts may fulfill evaluation role; no due process violation shown | Not required; Dr. Rome's expertise sufficed to protect due process |
| Whether substantial evidence supports the finding of present competence to participate | Dr. Rome's opinion of incompetence should control; grades were not probative of present ability | Grades and other factors can indicate competence; trial court did not abuse discretion | Substantial evidence supports competence determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992) (due process in competence determinations)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (test for competency: ability to consult with counsel with rational understanding)
- People v. Ricky S., 166 Cal.App.4th 232 (2008) (competency hearing standards for juveniles)
- Timothy J. v. Superior Court, 150 Cal.App.4th 847 (2007) (juvenile competency procedures; rule 5.645(d))
- Tyrone B. v. Superior Court, 164 Cal.App.4th 227 (2008) (appointment of expert when doubt exists; due process considerations)
- People v. Leonard, 40 Cal.4th 1370 (2007) (policy underlying §1369(a) regarding developmental disabilities)
- People v. Ramos, 34 Cal.4th 494 (2004) (presumption of competence and burden of proof in competency cases)
- People v. Marshall, 15 Cal.4th 1 (1997) (expert opinion weight and sufficiency in competence determinations)
- People v. Ary, 51 Cal.4th 510 (2011) (burden of proof and due process considerations in competence cases)
- James H. v. Superior Court, 77 Cal.App.3d 169 (1978) (juvenile court authority to borrow adult procedures in absence of specific statutes)