People v. Mickel
2 Cal.5th 181
| Cal. | 2016Background
- In November 2002 defendant Andrew Hampton Mickel shot and killed Red Bluff Police Officer David Mobilio; a jury convicted him of first‑degree murder and found the special circumstance that the victim was a peace officer, and returned a death verdict. The trial court affirmed and sentenced defendant to death.
- Evidence: ballistics linking a Sig Sauer .40 recovered from defendant, DNA on a cloth flag at the scene matching defendant as major contributor, tire and shoe impression comparisons, eyewitnesss and defendant’s own inculpatory admissions to having killed the officer.
- Procedural history highlights: defendant was arrested in New Hampshire after contacting media, raised competency concerns in New Hampshire based on a preliminary Drukteinis evaluation (not introduced at the California trial), later sought self‑representation in Tehama County and represented himself with advisory counsel.
- At trial the court excluded defendant’s proffered “liberty” justification defense as legally noncognizable; defendant largely did not present a guilt‑phase defense and testified at the penalty phase asserting a political motive.
- Post‑trial motions included an automatic section 190.4 review; defendant raised numerous appellate challenges including failure to hold competency hearings, ineffective assistance for not presenting the Drukteinis report, improper allowance of self‑representation, juror bias challenges, and exclusion of the liberty defense.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Mickel’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not ordering a section 1368 competency hearing pretrial based on Drukteinis report references | Court hadn’t been presented with the Drukteinis report or substantial evidence of incompetence | Trial court knew of and should have acted on the New Hampshire preliminary evaluation and news reports | No error — references were indirect and not substantial evidence before the court to trigger a 1368 hearing |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not presenting the Drukteinis report to obtain a competency hearing | Record does not show counsel had no tactical reason; claim better suited to habeas | Counsel’s failure denied effective assistance and prevented a competency hearing | Reject on direct appeal as record is inadequate to show deficient performance or prejudice; to be raised in collateral proceedings if appropriate |
| Whether the court erred in allowing Mickel to waive counsel (Faretta) given possible incompetence (Edwards gray‑area) | Defendant was competent under Dusky and demonstrated ability to perform basic tasks of self‑representation | Edwards requires higher standard; court should have tested competence to represent himself | No error — court reasonably found defendant capable under Edwards/Johnson criteria and waiver was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether exclusion of defendant’s “liberty” justification violated his right to testify / present a defense | The proffered political/justification theory is legally noncognizable and irrelevant to elements like premeditation | Exclusion prevented defendant from explaining motive and from testifying fully | No error — court properly excluded irrelevant, noncognizable justification evidence; limiting testimony was not disproportionate |
| Whether jurors biased in favor of automatic death for killing an officer (Wainwright/Witt) | Voir dire and questionnaires demonstrated jurors could impose either penalty; court observed demeanor and qualified them | Questionnaire answers showed irrevocable bias toward death for officer killings and required excusal | Claims forfeited by failure to use peremptory strikes/exhaust challenges; merits fail in any event — jurors stated willingness to consider both penalties |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (standard for competence to stand trial)
- Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (due process requires competency before trial)
- Pennington, 66 Cal.2d 508 (trial court discretion on ordering competency hearing; substantial evidence threshold)
- Lightsey, 54 Cal.4th 668 (substantial evidence triggers section 1368 hearing)
- Edwards v. Indiana, 554 U.S. 164 (states may impose competency limits on self‑representation for ‘‘gray‑area’’ defendants)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (right to self‑representation and waiver standards)
- Johnson, 53 Cal.4th 519 (California application of Edwards; standard for denying Faretta based on severe mental illness)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective‑assistance performance and prejudice framework)