second competency hearing in California

2026We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion in not reinstituting these proceedings. “ ‘ “Once a defendant has been found competent to stand trial, a second competency hearing is required only if the evidence discloses a substantial change of circumstances or new evidence is presented casting serious doubt on the validity of the prior finding of the defendant’s competence.” ’ ” (Buenrostro, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 409 ; People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219, 231, 234 (Rodas); Leonard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1415 ; People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115 , 1152–1153.) “[T]he duty to sus

2026“When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, . . . a trial 5 court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence’ casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding.” (People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1153 .) Here, no change of circumstance or new evidence was presented suggesting that Miramontez was not competent after his plea.

2026We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion in not reinstituting these proceedings. “ ‘ “Once a defendant has been found competent to stand trial, a second competency hearing is required only if the evidence discloses a substantial change of circumstances or new evidence is presented casting serious doubt on the validity of the prior finding of the defendant’s competence.” ’ ” (Buenrostro, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 409 ; People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219, 231, 234 (Rodas); Leonard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1415 ; People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115 , 1152–1153.) “[T]he duty to sus

2025As the high court stated, “[T]he duty to suspend is not triggered by information that substantially duplicates evidence already considered at an earlier, formal inquiry into the defendant’s competence.” (Rodas, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 234 ; cf. People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102 , 136–137 [no error in failing to conduct a second competency hearing where 17 proffered evidence affirmed “the same arguably delusional beliefs reported” by experts in their previous competency evaluations].) Martin’s trial conduct also does not support a finding that his mental state deteriorated over time.

2021The trial court declined to declare a doubt, citing the proposition that “[w]hen a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant was found competent to stand trial, the trial court is not required to conduct a second competency hearing unless it is presented with a substantial change in circumstances or with new evidence that gives a rise to a serious doubt about the validity of the competency finding.” (See People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 33 .) H.

2019Code,] § 1367.) When the accused presents substantial evidence of incompetence, due process requires that the trial court conduct a full competency hearing. [Citation.] Evidence is 'substantial' if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant's competence to stand trial. ... [¶] When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it 'is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence' casting a serious doubt on th

2021The state hospital, in its final report, stated the defendant remained incompetent to stand trial and was unlikely to 4 The Taitano court considered four opinions in which a second competency hearing was permitted upon a showing of changed circumstances. ( Taitano, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at pp. 251-252, citing People v. Jones (1997) 15 Cal.4th 119, 150 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823 ; People v. Kaplan (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 372, 384 ; People v. Murrell (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 822, 827 ; People v. Zatko (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 534, 548 .) The Taitano cour

2017The Cases on Which The People Rely Are Inapposite The People refer us to two cases asserting that a second competency hearing can be held under section 1368 upon changed circumstances after the defendant was found at the first hearing to be competent . ( People v. Murrell (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 822 , 827, 242 Cal.Rptr. 175 [after a finding of competence, the court was "obligated to reinitiate section 1368 proceedings only if defendant presented substantially new evidence or changed circumstances"]; People v. Zatko (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 534 , 548, 145 Cal.Rptr. 643 [court may not avoid responsibi

2021The state hospital, in its final report, stated the defendant remained incompetent to stand trial and was unlikely to 4 The Taitano court considered four opinions in which a second competency hearing was permitted upon a showing of changed circumstances. ( Taitano, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at pp. 251-252, citing People v. Jones (1997) 15 Cal.4th 119, 150 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823 ; People v. Kaplan (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 372, 384 ; People v. Murrell (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 822, 827 ; People v. Zatko (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 534, 548 .) The Taitano cour

2017The Cases on Which The People Rely Are Inapposite The People refer us to two cases asserting that a second competency hearing can be held under section 1368 upon changed circumstances after the defendant was found at the first hearing to be competent . ( People v. Murrell (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 822 , 827, 242 Cal.Rptr. 175 [after a finding of competence, the court was "obligated to reinitiate section 1368 proceedings only if defendant presented substantially new evidence or changed circumstances"]; People v. Zatko (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 534 , 548, 145 Cal.Rptr. 643 [court may not avoid responsibi

2023Evidence “ ‘that does no more than form the basis for speculation regarding possible current incompetence is not sufficient.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Ramirez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 398, 431 (Ramirez).) Moreover, “ ‘[w]hen a competency hearing has already been held and defendant has been found competent to stand trial, . . . a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it “is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence” casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding.’ ” (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 542 .) A

2019Code,] § 1367.) When the accused presents substantial evidence of incompetence, due process requires that the trial court conduct a full competency hearing. [Citation.] Evidence is 'substantial' if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant's competence to stand trial. ... [¶] When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it 'is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence' casting a serious doubt on th

2021The state hospital, in its final report, stated the defendant remained incompetent to stand trial and was unlikely to 4 The Taitano court considered four opinions in which a second competency hearing was permitted upon a showing of changed circumstances. ( Taitano, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at pp. 251-252, citing People v. Jones (1997) 15 Cal.4th 119, 150 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823 ; People v. Kaplan (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 372, 384 ; People v. Murrell (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 822, 827 ; People v. Zatko (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 534, 548 .) The Taitano cour

2019Code,] § 1367.) When the accused presents substantial evidence of incompetence, due process requires that the trial court conduct a full competency hearing. [Citation.] Evidence is 'substantial' if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant's competence to stand trial. ... [¶] When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it 'is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence' casting a serious doubt on th

2024As the high court stated, “the duty to suspend is not triggered by information that substantially duplicates evidence already considered at an earlier, formal inquiry into the defendant’s competence.” (Rodas, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 234 ; see, e.g., People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856, 892 [a doctor’s report that reiterates symptoms considered in a previous competency hearing did not tend to undermine the jury’s prior finding]; People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 136-139 [no error in failing to conduct a second competency hearing where proffered evidence affirmed “the same arguably delu

2021(See People v. Murdoch (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 230, 238-239 ; see also People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856, 884 [“‘[W]hen a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent . . . a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it “is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence” casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding’”], italics added.) I would reverse and remand to permit the trial court to determine, in the first instance, whether the People can make the difficult and

2022At the request of the defendant or his or her counsel or upon its own motion, the court shall recess the proceedings for as 16 “[G]enerally speaking, when a defendant has already been found competent to stand trial, ‘a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it “is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence” casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219, 234 (Rodas); see also People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1153 .) And, “when a competency hearing h

2021I, §§ 7, 15.) When a trial court is presented with substantial evidence of a defendant’s incompetence to stand trial, the court must initiate competency proceedings. (§ 1368, subd. (a); People v. Pennington (1967) 66 Cal.2d 508, 518 , discussing Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 385-386 [ 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 ].) This is so “even if the court’s own observations lead it to believe the defendant is competent.” (People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1153 .) 15 “When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial

2013(People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 691, 727 , disapproved on another ground in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046 .) Defendant argues that this case is similar to People v. Melissakis (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 52 (Melissakis), in which the appellate court concluded the trial court abused its discretion when it found no substantial change in circumstances to justify holding a second competency hearing.

2004As the California Supreme Court has explained, “When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial . . . , a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘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. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1153 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 811 P.2d 757 ]; accord, People v. Kelly, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 542; People v. Melissakis (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 52, 62 [ 128 Cal.R

2025As the high court stated, “[T]he duty to suspend is not triggered by information that substantially duplicates evidence already considered at an earlier, formal inquiry into the defendant’s competence.” (Rodas, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 234 ; cf. People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102 , 136–137 [no error in failing to conduct a second competency hearing where 17 proffered evidence affirmed “the same arguably delusional beliefs reported” by experts in their previous competency evaluations].) Martin’s trial conduct also does not support a finding that his mental state deteriorated over time.

2024As the high court stated, “the duty to suspend is not triggered by information that substantially duplicates evidence already considered at an earlier, formal inquiry into the defendant’s competence.” (Rodas, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 234 ; see, e.g., People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856, 892 [a doctor’s report that reiterates symptoms considered in a previous competency hearing did not tend to undermine the jury’s prior finding]; People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 136-139 [no error in failing to conduct a second competency hearing where proffered evidence affirmed “the same arguably delu

2019Code,] § 1367.) When the accused presents substantial evidence of incompetence, due process requires that the trial court conduct a full competency hearing. [Citation.] Evidence is 'substantial' if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant's competence to stand trial. ... [¶] When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it 'is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence' casting a serious doubt on th

2019Code,] § 1367.) When the accused presents substantial evidence of incompetence, due process requires that the trial court conduct a full competency hearing. [Citation.] Evidence is 'substantial' if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant's competence to stand trial. ... [¶] When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it 'is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence' casting a serious doubt on th

2020The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error.” (Id. at p. 691.) “ ‘ “When a competency hearing has already been held and defendant has been found competent to stand trial, . . . a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence’ casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding. [Citations.]” ’ ” (Taylor, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 864 .) On appeal, “[i]n resolving the question of whether, as a matter of law, the ev

2016(People v. Taylor (2009) 47 Cal.4th 850, 864 ; People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 220 .) On appeal, a trial court’s ruling on whether a second competency hearing is required is reviewed to determine whether there is substantial evidence supporting the ruling.

2021The state hospital, in its final report, stated the defendant remained incompetent to stand trial and was unlikely to 4 The Taitano court considered four opinions in which a second competency hearing was permitted upon a showing of changed circumstances. ( Taitano, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at pp. 251-252, citing People v. Jones (1997) 15 Cal.4th 119, 150 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823 ; People v. Kaplan (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 372, 384 ; People v. Murrell (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 822, 827 ; People v. Zatko (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 534, 548 .) The Taitano cour

2021However, courts have reasoned that “the numerous references in that statute to a hearing indicate a legislative intention that such a hearing be afforded.” (People v. Murrell (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 822, 826 .) 11 In addition, under section 1370, subdivision (a)(1)(G), a second competency hearing during the commitment period is authorized (without issuance of a certificate of restoration) if there is substantial evidence of a change in the defendant’s condition. 15 In the absence of any particulars in section 1372 about the hearing on the restoration of competence, the California Supreme Court h

2019Code,] § 1367.) When the accused presents substantial evidence of incompetence, due process requires that the trial court conduct a full competency hearing. [Citation.] Evidence is 'substantial' if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant's competence to stand trial. ... [¶] When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it 'is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence' casting a serious doubt on th

2019Code,] § 1367.) When the accused presents substantial evidence of incompetence, due process requires that the trial court conduct a full competency hearing. [Citation.] Evidence is 'substantial' if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant's competence to stand trial. ... [¶] When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it 'is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence' casting a serious doubt on th

2013(People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 691, 727 , disapproved on another ground in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046 .) Defendant argues that this case is similar to People v. Melissakis (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 52 (Melissakis), in which the appellate court concluded the trial court abused its discretion when it found no substantial change in circumstances to justify holding a second competency hearing.

2002Trial court's subsequent failure during guilt and penalty phases to declare a doubt regarding defendant's competency When, at any time prior to judgment, a trial court is presented with substantial evidence of a defendant's incompetence to stand trial, due process requires a full competency hearing. ( People v. Danielson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 726 , 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 838 P.2d 729 .) "`When a competency hearing has already been held *643 and defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it "

2015(People v. Stankewitz (1982) 32 Cal.3d 80, 92 .) “When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence’ casting a serious doubt on the validity of that 14 finding. [Citations.]” (People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1153 , italics added.) In such circumstance, “the trial court may appropriately take its personal observations into account in determining whether th

2014When, as here, a defendant has been found competent to stand trial, “a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence’ casting a serious doubt on the validity of [the competency] finding.” (People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1153 (Jones).) To warrant a second competency hearing, “[m]ore is required than just bizarre actions or statements by the defendant.” (People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 33 ; accord, Ramos, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 508 ; People v. Marks (2003) 31

2020(See also People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1254 [“substantial evidence, including the trial court’s own observations of defendant, supports the court's factual determination that defendant was not intoxicated at the time he entered his guilty plea and that his plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary”].) 13 The Probate Court Did Not Violate Principles of Conservatorship Law Appellant claims that the probate “court’s actions and orders violated basic principles under the State Conservatorship Statute.” (Bold and capitalization omitted.) “[O]f particular significance, the [probate]

2019(See also People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223 , 1254, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 784 , 947 P.2d 1321 ["substantial evidence, including the trial court's own observations of defendant, supports the court's factual determination that defendant was not intoxicated at the time he entered his guilty plea and that his plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary"].) The Probate Court Did Not Violate Principles of Conservatorship Law Appellant claims that the probate "court's actions and orders violated basic principles under the State Conservatorship Statute." (Bold and capitalization omitted.) "[O]f part

2016A trial court’s ruling regarding a competency hearing is entitled to great deference because “‘[a]n appellate court is in no position to appraise a defendant’s conduct in the trial court as indicating insanity, a calculated attempt to feign [mental incompetence] and delay the proceedings, or sheer temper.’” (People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 691, 727 , overruled on a different point in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 .) c.

2013(People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 691, 727 , disapproved on another ground in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046 .) Defendant argues that this case is similar to People v. Melissakis (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 52 (Melissakis), in which the appellate court concluded the trial court abused its discretion when it found no substantial change in circumstances to justify holding a second competency hearing.

2025“When a competency hearing has already been held and defendant has been found competent to stand trial, . . . a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence' casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding.” (People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1153 (Jones).) “[T]he duty to suspend is not triggered by information that substantially duplicates evidence already considered at an earlier, formal inquiry into the defendant’s competence; when faced with evidence of re

2019Code,] § 1367.) When the accused presents substantial evidence of incompetence, due process requires that the trial court conduct a full competency hearing. [Citation.] Evidence is 'substantial' if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant's competence to stand trial. ... [¶] When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it 'is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence' casting a serious doubt on th

2026We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion in not reinstituting these proceedings. “ ‘ “Once a defendant has been found competent to stand trial, a second competency hearing is required only if the evidence discloses a substantial change of circumstances or new evidence is presented casting serious doubt on the validity of the prior finding of the defendant’s competence.” ’ ” (Buenrostro, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 409 ; People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219, 231, 234 (Rodas); Leonard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1415 ; People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115 , 1152–1153.) “[T]he duty to sus

2026We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion in not reinstituting these proceedings. “ ‘ “Once a defendant has been found competent to stand trial, a second competency hearing is required only if the evidence discloses a substantial change of circumstances or new evidence is presented casting serious doubt on the validity of the prior finding of the defendant’s competence.” ’ ” (Buenrostro, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 409 ; People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219, 231, 234 (Rodas); Leonard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1415 ; People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115 , 1152–1153.) “[T]he duty to sus

2013(Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 525 ; Blair, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 719 ; People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 433 .) “‘“When a competency hearing has already been held and defendant has been found competent to stand trial, … a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘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. Taylor, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 864 ; People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 542 ; People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th

2013(Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 525 ; Blair, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 719 ; People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 433 .) “‘“When a competency hearing has already been held and defendant has been found competent to stand trial, … a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘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. Taylor, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 864 ; People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 542 ; People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th

2014As we have said: ‘ “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. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 33 , italics added; accord, People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197, 220 .) We review whether the determination not to hold a second competency hearing was supported by substantial evidence.

2014When, as here, a defendant has been found competent to stand trial, “a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence’ casting a serious doubt on the validity of [the competency] finding.” (People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1153 (Jones).) To warrant a second competency hearing, “[m]ore is required than just bizarre actions or statements by the defendant.” (People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 33 ; accord, Ramos, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 508 ; People v. Marks (2003) 31

2014Analysis Under both state law and federal due process principles, a defendant cannot be tried if he or she is not capable of understanding the nature of the proceedings and assisting defense counsel. (§ 1367; see People v Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 524 .) However, “ ‘ “[w]hen a competency hearing has already been held and defendant has been found competent to stand trial . . . a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘is presented with a substantial change of 11 circumstances or with new evidence’ casting a serious doubt on the validity of t

2013(Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 525 ; Blair, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 719 ; People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 433 .) “‘“When a competency hearing has already been held and defendant has been found competent to stand trial, … a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘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. Taylor, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 864 ; People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 542 ; People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th

2022At the request of the defendant or his or her counsel or upon its own motion, the court shall recess the proceedings for as 16 “[G]enerally speaking, when a defendant has already been found competent to stand trial, ‘a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it “is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence” casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219, 234 (Rodas); see also People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1153 .) And, “when a competency hearing h

2021I, §§ 7, 15.) When a trial court is presented with substantial evidence of a defendant’s incompetence to stand trial, the court must initiate competency proceedings. (§ 1368, subd. (a); People v. Pennington (1967) 66 Cal.2d 508, 518 , discussing Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 385-386 [ 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 ].) This is so “even if the court’s own observations lead it to believe the defendant is competent.” (People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1153 .) 15 “When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial

2016“When the accused presents substantial evidence of incompetence, due process requires that the trial court conduct a full competency hearing.” (People v. Jones, supra, 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1152 .) “Evidence is ‘substantial’ if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s competence to stand trial.” (Ibid.) “When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence’ cas

2016“When the accused presents substantial evidence of incompetence, due process requires that the trial court conduct a full competency hearing.” (People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1152 .) “Evidence is ‘substantial’ if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s 14 competence to stand trial.” (Ibid.) “When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence’ c