competence hearing in California

2023(People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1217 .) “A trial court’s decision whether or not to hold a competence hearing is entitled to deference, because the court has the opportunity to observe the defendant during trial.” (People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847 .) An appellate court is generally not in a position to appraise a defendant’s conduct in the trial court as indicating insanity, a calculated attempt to feign insanity and delay the proceedings, or sheer temper.

2021A trial court reversibly errs if it fails to hold a competency hearing when one is required under the substantial evidence test.’ ” (People v. Woodruff, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 721 ; see People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847 (Rogers) [“A trial court’s decision whether or not to hold a competence hearing is entitled to deference, because the court has the opportunity to observe the defendant during trial”].) Substantial evidence of incompetence is evidence “that raises a reasonable or bona fide doubt concerning the defendant’s competence to stand trial.” (Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 84

2020The Court explained in those cases that in deciding whether there’s a bona fide doubt about competence as a matter of law, the court looks to the evidence of incompetence, not the conflicting evidence. “[O]nce the accused has come forward with substantial evidence of 20 incompetence to stand trial, due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right. [Citation.] In that event, the trial judge has no discretion to exercise. [Citation.] As we also have noted, substantial evidence of incompetence is sufficient to require a full competence hearing even if the evidence

2018"The failure to declare a doubt and conduct a hearing when there is substantial evidence of incompetence, however, requires reversal of the judgment of conviction." ( Rogers, supra , 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 , 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) "[O]nce the accused has come forward with substantial evidence of incompetence to stand trial, due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right. [Citation.] In that event, the trial judge has no discretion to exercise." ( People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 , 738, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 ( Welch ).) "When the accu

2018"The failure to declare a doubt and conduct a hearing when there is substantial evidence of incompetence, however, requires reversal of the judgment of conviction." ( Rogers, supra , 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 , 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) "[O]nce the accused has come forward with substantial evidence of incompetence to stand trial, due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right. [Citation.] In that event, the trial judge has no discretion to exercise." ( People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 , 738, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 ( Welch ).) "When the accu

2018"The failure to declare a doubt and conduct a hearing when there is substantial evidence of incompetence, however, requires reversal of the judgment of conviction." ( Rogers, supra , 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 , 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) "[O]nce the accused has come forward with substantial evidence of incompetence to stand trial, due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right. [Citation.] In that event, the trial judge has no discretion to exercise." ( People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 , 738, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 ( Welch ).) "When the accu

2023(People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1217 .) “A trial court’s decision whether or not to hold a competence hearing is entitled to deference, because the court has the opportunity to observe the defendant during trial.” (People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847 .) An appellate court is generally not in a position to appraise a defendant’s conduct in the trial court as indicating insanity, a calculated attempt to feign insanity and delay the proceedings, or sheer temper.

2018The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error"]; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149 , 1216, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 105 P.3d 487 [if a defendant produces substantial evidence of incompetence, " 'due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right' " and the trial court has " 'no direction to exercise' "]; People v. Kaplan (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 372 , 383, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 143 [federal due process and state law require a trial court to suspend trial proceedings and conduct a mental competency hearing when the c

2016(People v. Laudermilk (1967) 67 Cal.2d 272, 285 (Laudermilk); People v. Jensen (1954) 43 Cal.2d 572, 579 .) Rather, the focus of the competence inquiry is on a defendant‘s understanding of the criminal proceedings against him or her and the ability to consult with counsel or otherwise assist in his or her defense.

2008(See, e.g., People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 527-528 , 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 826 , 896 P.2d 119 ; People v. Laudermilk (1967) 67 Cal.2d 272, 287 , 61 Cal.Rptr. 644 , 431 P.2d 228 .) If there is testimony from a qualified expert that, because of a mental disorder, a defendant truly lacks the ability to cooperate with counsel, a competence hearing is required.

2021We return to those questions here. 12 “‘Under section 1368, if a “doubt arises in the mind of the judge” as to the defendant’s mental competence, the judge must “state that doubt in the record” and solicit defense counsel’s opinion on the matter. [Citation.] In such a case, “[i]f counsel informs the court that he believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent,” the court must order a hearing. [Citation.]’” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1111- 1112.) “A trial court is required to conduct a competence hearing, sua sponte if necessary, whenever there is substantial evidenc

2021We return to those questions here. 12 “‘Under section 1368, if a “doubt arises in the mind of the judge” as to the defendant’s mental competence, the judge must “state that doubt in the record” and solicit defense counsel’s opinion on the matter. [Citation.] In such a case, “[i]f counsel informs the court that he believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent,” the court must order a hearing. [Citation.]’” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1111- 1112.) “A trial court is required to conduct a competence hearing, sua sponte if necessary, whenever there is substantial evidenc

2021We return to those questions here. 12 “‘Under section 1368, if a “doubt arises in the mind of the judge” as to the defendant’s mental competence, the judge must “state that doubt in the record” and solicit defense counsel’s opinion on the matter. [Citation.] In such a case, “[i]f counsel informs the court that he believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent,” the court must order a hearing. [Citation.]’” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1111- 1112.) “A trial court is required to conduct a competence hearing, sua sponte if necessary, whenever there is substantial evidenc

2021We return to those questions here. 12 “‘Under section 1368, if a “doubt arises in the mind of the judge” as to the defendant’s mental competence, the judge must “state that doubt in the record” and solicit defense counsel’s opinion on the matter. [Citation.] In such a case, “[i]f counsel informs the court that he believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent,” the court must order a hearing. [Citation.]’” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1111- 1112.) “A trial court is required to conduct a competence hearing, sua sponte if necessary, whenever there is substantial evidenc

2022(People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 691 , 727 overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 ; Drope v. Missouri (1975) 420 U.S. 162, 181 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 103, 118-119 ].) “If, after a competency hearing, the defendant is found competent to stand trial, a trial court may rely on that finding unless the court ‘ “is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence” casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219, 231 (Rodas).) This rule does not “alter or displace the

2022(People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 691 , 727 overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 ; Drope v. Missouri (1975) 420 U.S. 162, 181 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 103, 118-119 ].) “If, after a competency hearing, the defendant is found competent to stand trial, a trial court may rely on that finding unless the court ‘ “is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence” casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219, 231 (Rodas).) This rule does not “alter or displace the

2022(People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 691 , 727 overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 ; Drope v. Missouri (1975) 420 U.S. 162, 181 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 103, 118-119 ].) “If, after a competency hearing, the defendant is found competent to stand trial, a trial court may rely on that finding unless the court ‘ “is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence” casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219, 231 (Rodas).) This rule does not “alter or displace the

2014(People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1033 .) In People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694 , our Supreme Court found defendant’s cursing and disruptive behavior “displayed an unwillingness to assist in his defense, but did not necessarily bear on his competence to do so, or reflect a substantial 12 change of circumstances or new evidence casting serious doubt on the validity of the prior finding of the defendant's competence.” (Id. at p. 735.) “A trial court’s decision whether or not to hold a competence hearing is entitled to deference, because the court has the opportunity to observe the defend

2018A. Retrospective Competency Hearings Generally In People v. Kaplan, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at pages 387 to 389, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 143 , a panel of this court reviewed the history of retrospective competency hearings as follows: "The California Supreme Court in People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th 1149 , 1216-1217 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 105 P.3d 487 ], stated, 'where the substantial evidence test is satisfied and a full competence hearing is required but the trial court fails to hold one, the judgment must be reversed. [Citation.]' In a footnote, and without approving or disapproving the case, the S

2018A. Retrospective Competency Hearings Generally In People v. Kaplan, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at pages 387 to 389, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 143 , a panel of this court reviewed the history of retrospective competency hearings as follows: "The California Supreme Court in People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th 1149 , 1216-1217 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 105 P.3d 487 ], stated, 'where the substantial evidence test is satisfied and a full competence hearing is required but the trial court fails to hold one, the judgment must be reversed. [Citation.]' In a footnote, and without approving or disapproving the case, the S

2018The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error"]; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149 , 1216, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 105 P.3d 487 [if a defendant produces substantial evidence of incompetence, " 'due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right' " and the trial court has " 'no direction to exercise' "]; People v. Kaplan (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 372 , 383, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 143 [federal due process and state law require a trial court to suspend trial proceedings and conduct a mental competency hearing when the c

2018The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error"]; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149 , 1216, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 105 P.3d 487 [if a defendant produces substantial evidence of incompetence, " 'due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right' " and the trial court has " 'no direction to exercise' "]; People v. Kaplan (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 372 , 383, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 143 [federal due process and state law require a trial court to suspend trial proceedings and conduct a mental competency hearing when the c

2025Evidence that “merely raises a suspicion that the defendant lacks present sanity or competence but does not disclose a present inability because of mental illness to participate rationally in the trial is not deemed ‘substantial’ evidence requiring a competence hearing.” (People v. Deere, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 358 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1228, fn. 9 .) Considering Medeiros’s trial testimony was otherwise coherent, logical, and responsive to the questions asked, we conclude his testimony did not constitute substantial evidence of incompetence an

2014Evidence that “merely raises a suspicion that the defendant lacks present sanity or competence but does not disclose a present inability because of mental illness to participate rationally in the trial is not deemed ‘substantial’ evidence requiring a competence hearing.” (People v. Deere (1985) 41 Cal.3d 353, 358 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1228, fn. 9 .) “If a defendant presents merely a ‘litany of facts, none of which actually related to his competence [during the relevant proceeding] to understand the nature of that proceeding or to rationally as

2020(People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847 (Rogers).) If evidence of the defendant’s incompetence is less than substantial (and the court has not expressed a doubt as to his competence), the decision to conduct such a hearing is a matter of discretion. ( Pennington, supra, at p. 518 .) “A trial court’s decision whether or not to hold a competence hearing is entitled to deference, because the court has the opportunity to observe the defendant during trial.” ( Rogers, supra, at p. 847 .) Substantial evidence of incompetence is evidence “that raises a reasonable or bona fide doubt concerning th

2019(People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847 (Rogers).) If evidence of the defendant’s incompetence is less than substantial (and the court has not expressed a doubt as to his competence), the decision to conduct such a hearing is a matter of discretion. ( Pennington, supra, at p. 518 .) “A trial court’s decision whether or not to hold a competence hearing is entitled to deference, because the court has the opportunity to observe the defendant during trial.” ( Rogers, supra, at p. 847 .) Substantial evidence of incompetence is evidence “that raises a reasonable or bona fide doubt concerning th

2020Nothing more was required of him in order to exercise his right of self-representation.” (Silfa, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1322 .) The court went on, “ ‘As the United States Supreme Court further clarified in Godinez [v. Moran (1993) 509 U.S. 389 ], 12 . . . the trial court may not ascertain a defendant’s competence to waive counsel by evaluating the ability to represent himself or herself. [Citation.] In explaining the difference between the competence and waiver requirements, the high court stated: “The focus of a competency inquiry is the defendant’s mental capacity; the question is wheth

2014(Id. at pp. 872-873.) In Godinez v. Moran (1993) 509 U.S. 389 (Godinez), the United States Supreme Court appeared to confirm that a separate competence requirement for self-representation did not exist under federal law.

2018"The failure to declare a doubt and conduct a hearing when there is substantial evidence of incompetence, however, requires reversal of the judgment of conviction." ( Rogers, supra , 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 , 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) "[O]nce the accused has come forward with substantial evidence of incompetence to stand trial, due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right. [Citation.] In that event, the trial judge has no discretion to exercise." ( People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 , 738, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 ( Welch ).) "When the accu

2018"The failure to declare a doubt and conduct a hearing when there is substantial evidence of incompetence, however, requires reversal of the judgment of conviction." ( Rogers, supra , 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 , 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) "[O]nce the accused has come forward with substantial evidence of incompetence to stand trial, due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right. [Citation.] In that event, the trial judge has no discretion to exercise." ( People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 , 738, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 ( Welch ).) "When the accu

2025Legal Standards A defendant who, “as a result of a mental health disorder or developmental disability, . . . is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner,” is incompetent to stand trial. (§ 1367.) “ ‘A trial court is required to conduct a competence hearing, sua sponte if necessary, whenever 5 there is substantial evidence of mental incompetence.’ ” (In re Sims (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 762 , 773.) However, “the duty to suspend is not triggered by information that substantially duplicates evidence already consi

2022(People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 691 , 727 overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 ; Drope v. Missouri (1975) 420 U.S. 162, 181 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 103, 118-119 ].) “If, after a competency hearing, the defendant is found competent to stand trial, a trial court may rely on that finding unless the court ‘ “is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence” casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219, 231 (Rodas).) This rule does not “alter or displace the

2022Trial Court’s Determination “ ‘Penal Code section 1368 requires that criminal proceedings be suspended and competency proceedings be commenced if “a doubt arises in the mind of the judge” regarding the defendant’s competence (id., subd. (a)) and defense counsel concurs (id., subd. (b)).’ ” (People v. Wycoff (2021) 12 Cal.5th 58, 82 (Wycoff).) “If the defendant is not represented by counsel, the court shall appoint counsel.” (§ 1368, subd. (a).) “ ‘A trial court is required to conduct a competence hearing, sua sponte if necessary, whenever there is substantial evidence of mental incompetence.”

2022Trial Court’s Determination “ ‘Penal Code section 1368 requires that criminal proceedings be suspended and competency proceedings be commenced if “a doubt arises in the mind of the judge” regarding the defendant’s competence (id., subd. (a)) and defense counsel concurs (id., subd. (b)).’ ” (People v. Wycoff (2021) 12 Cal.5th 58, 82 (Wycoff).) “If the defendant is not represented by counsel, the court shall appoint counsel.” (§ 1368, subd. (a).) “ ‘A trial court is required to conduct a competence hearing, sua sponte if necessary, whenever there is substantial evidence of mental incompetence.”

2019(Jones, at p. 1153; Rodas, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 234 .) That said, it then went on to explain the limitations of what it would call “the Jones rule”: “This rule does not . . . alter or displace the basic constitutional requirement of Pate, supra, 383 U.S. at pages 385 to 386, and People v. Pennington, supra, 66 Cal.2d at page 518 , which require the court to suspend criminal proceedings and conduct a competence hearing upon receipt of substantial evidence of incompetence even if other information points toward competence.

2016Section 1368 provides that a competency hearing is required when the trial court declares a doubt as to the defendant's competence to stand trial. (§ 1368, subd. (a).) 4 Despite the wording of section 1368, however, the California Supreme Court has declared that a competency hearing is also required if defense counsel informs the court that he or she has a doubt as to the defendant's competency and produces substantial evidence that the defendant is not competent: "[O]nce the accused has come forward with substantial evidence of incompetence to stand trial, due process requires that a full com

2013“An appellate court is in no position to appraise a defendant’s conduct in the trial court as indicating insanity, a calculated attempt to feign insanity and delay the proceedings, or sheer temper.” (People v. Merkouris (1959) 52 Cal.2d 672, 679 .) “ ‘A trial court’s decision whether or not to hold a competence hearing is entitled to deference, because the court has the opportunity to observe the defendant during trial. [Citations.] The failure to declare a doubt and conduct a hearing when there is substantial evidence of incompetence, however, requires reversal of the judgment of conviction.

2013(People v. Blair, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 711 ; People v. Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 .) “A trial court’s decision whether or not to hold a competence hearing is entitled to deference, because the court has the opportunity to observe the defendant during trial.” (Rogers, at p. 847; People v. Mai, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1033 ; People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 525 .) “In resolving the question of whether, as a matter of law, the evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s mental competence, we may consider all the relevant facts in the record.” (People v. Young (2005) 34

2025Evidence that “merely raises a suspicion that the defendant lacks present sanity or competence but does not disclose a present inability because of mental illness to participate rationally in the trial is not deemed ‘substantial’ evidence requiring a competence hearing.” (People v. Deere, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 358 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1228, fn. 9 .) Considering Medeiros’s trial testimony was otherwise coherent, logical, and responsive to the questions asked, we conclude his testimony did not constitute substantial evidence of incompetence an

2014Evidence that “merely raises a suspicion that the defendant lacks present sanity or competence but does not disclose a present inability because of mental illness to participate rationally in the trial is not deemed ‘substantial’ evidence requiring a competence hearing.” (People v. Deere (1985) 41 Cal.3d 353, 358 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1228, fn. 9 .) “If a defendant presents merely a ‘litany of facts, none of which actually related to his competence [during the relevant proceeding] to understand the nature of that proceeding or to rationally as

2025Indeed, counsel acts “irresponsibly” if he or she leaves “to defendant the task of deciding which information the psychiatrists should review in preparation for the competence hearing.” (People v. Samuel (1981) 29 Cal.3d 489, 496 .) Courts have therefore held that defense counsel may furnish an illegally obtained confession to an expert evaluator “who considers that confession in forming an opinion of the defendant’s mental condition.” (Id. at p. 495.) And when, as here, defense counsel has only provided information to the expert evaluator that is “ ‘directly relevant to’ the competency evalua

1994Rather, “the trial court obviously ordered a competence hearing in an overabundance of caution, and not because it was statutorily or constitutionally compelled to do so.” {Id. at p. 184.) Now that the issue is squarely presented, we conclude, as we did implicitly in People v. McPeters, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pages 1168-1169, that the presumption of competence upheld in People v. Medina, supra, 51 Cal.3d 870 , does not affect the continuing validity of People v. Samuel, supra, 29 Cal.3d 489 , or People v. Hill, supra, 67 Cal.2d 105 .

2025When a court doubts a defendant’s competence to stand trial, it ‘shall appoint a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist, and any other expert the court may deem appropriate, to examine the defendant.’ [Citation.] Similarly, when it doubts the defendant’s mental competence for self-representation, it may order a psychological or psychiatric examination to inquire into that question.” (Johnson, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 530 .) The court should apply the heightened competence standard “cautiously.” (Id. at p. 531.) “Criminal defendants still 7 generally have a Sixth Amendment right to represent them

2020(People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847 .) “Evidence of incompetence may emanate from several sources, including the defendant’s demeanor, irrational behavior, and prior mental evaluations.” (People v. Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 ; see Johnson, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 525, 532-533 & fn. 2 [evidence of incompetence includes bizarre, noncompliant, or disruptive behavior and the filing of nonsensical motions or bizarre documents].) “To raise a doubt under the substantial evidence test, [courts] require more than ‘mere bizarre actions’ or statements, or even expert testimony that a d

2020(People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847 .) “Evidence of incompetence may emanate from several sources, including the defendant’s demeanor, irrational behavior, and prior mental evaluations.” (People v. Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 ; see Johnson, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 525, 532-533 & fn. 2 [evidence of incompetence includes bizarre, noncompliant, or disruptive behavior and the filing of nonsensical motions or bizarre documents].) “To raise a doubt under the substantial evidence test, [courts] require more than ‘mere bizarre actions’ or statements, or even expert testimony that a d

2013(People v. Blair, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 711 ; People v. Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 .) “A trial court’s decision whether or not to hold a competence hearing is entitled to deference, because the court has the opportunity to observe the defendant during trial.” (Rogers, at p. 847; People v. Mai, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1033 ; People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 525 .) “In resolving the question of whether, as a matter of law, the evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s mental competence, we may consider all the relevant facts in the record.” (People v. Young (2005) 34

2018"The failure to declare a doubt and conduct a hearing when there is substantial evidence of incompetence, however, requires reversal of the judgment of conviction." ( Rogers, supra , 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 , 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) "[O]nce the accused has come forward with substantial evidence of incompetence to stand trial, due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right. [Citation.] In that event, the trial judge has no discretion to exercise." ( People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 , 738, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 ( Welch ).) "When the accu

2018"The failure to declare a doubt and conduct a hearing when there is substantial evidence of incompetence, however, requires reversal of the judgment of conviction." ( Rogers, supra , 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 , 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) "[O]nce the accused has come forward with substantial evidence of incompetence to stand trial, due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right. [Citation.] In that event, the trial judge has no discretion to exercise." ( People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 , 738, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 ( Welch ).) "When the accu

2018(See Drope v. Missouri (1975) 420 U.S. 162 , 183 [ 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 ] [accepting possibility of constitutionally adequate postappeal evaluation of defendant's pretrial competence]; People v. Superior Court ( Marks ) (1991) 1 Cal.4th 56 , 67 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 389 , 820 P.2d 613 ] [citing reference in Drope v. Missouri about possibility of constitutionally adequate postappeal competency evaluation]; People v. Castro (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1402 , 1419 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 770 ] ['the California Supreme Court has adopted the view that the United States Supreme Court "accept[s] the possibilit

2018(See Drope v. Missouri (1975) 420 U.S. 162 , 183 [ 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 ] [accepting possibility of constitutionally adequate postappeal evaluation of defendant's pretrial competence]; People v. Superior Court ( Marks ) (1991) 1 Cal.4th 56 , 67 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 389 , 820 P.2d 613 ] [citing reference in Drope v. Missouri about possibility of constitutionally adequate postappeal competency evaluation]; People v. Castro (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1402 , 1419 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 770 ] ['the California Supreme Court has adopted the view that the United States Supreme Court "accept[s] the possibilit

2018(See Drope v. Missouri (1975) 420 U.S. 162 , 183 [ 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 ] [accepting possibility of constitutionally adequate postappeal evaluation of defendant's pretrial competence]; People v. Superior Court ( Marks ) (1991) 1 Cal.4th 56 , 67 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 389 , 820 P.2d 613 ] [citing reference in Drope v. Missouri about possibility of constitutionally adequate postappeal competency evaluation]; People v. Castro (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1402 , 1419 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 770 ] ['the California Supreme Court has adopted the view that the United States Supreme Court "accept[s] the possibilit

2018(See Drope v. Missouri (1975) 420 U.S. 162 , 183 [ 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 ] [accepting possibility of constitutionally adequate postappeal evaluation of defendant's pretrial competence]; People v. Superior Court ( Marks ) (1991) 1 Cal.4th 56 , 67 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 389 , 820 P.2d 613 ] [citing reference in Drope v. Missouri about possibility of constitutionally adequate postappeal competency evaluation]; People v. Castro (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1402 , 1419 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 770 ] ['the California Supreme Court has adopted the view that the United States Supreme Court "accept[s] the possibilit