People v. Zygadlo CA1/2

Filed 7/18/24 P. v. Zygadlo CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169373 v. JOSEPH MATTHEW ZYGADLO, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 022301259) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Joseph Matthew Zygadlo appeals from orders finding him not competent to stand trial, committing him to the Department of State Hospitals, and authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief setting forth the applicable facts and law pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.) and People v. Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020 (Blanchard). Appointed counsel informed defendant that he could file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Our discretionary review of the record discloses no arguable issues, and we therefore affirm. BACKGROUND On August 17, 2023, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a felony complaint against defendant charging him with throwing an object (a wrench) at a vehicle or an occupant of the vehicle with intent to do great

1

bodily harm (Veh. Code, § 23110, subd. (b)); eight counts of disobeying a court order (Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (a)(4))1 based on incidents that allegedly occurred between February 27 and August 16, 2023; and three counts of criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)) based on incidents that allegedly occurred between April 17 and August 16, 2023. On September 5, the day scheduled for the preliminary hearing, defense counsel expressed a doubt about defendant’s competence to stand trial. The trial court (Hon. Charles B. Burch) also expressed a doubt regarding defendant’s competence and suspended the criminal proceedings pursuant to section 1368 et seq. At a hearing on September 12, defense counsel reported that defendant “objects to competency proceedings.” The trial court (Hon. Julia Campins) appointed psychologist Stephanie Williams, Ph.D., and psychiatrist Patrick Wiita, M.D., to evaluate defendant. Both evaluators determined that defendant was mentally incompetent to stand trial, that it was medically appropriate to treat defendant with antipsychotic medication, and that defendant did not have the capacity to make decisions about such medication. At a hearing on October 31, defendant moved for the appointment of new counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, which motion the trial court denied. Also on October 31, defense counsel and the People submitted on the evaluators’ reports. Based on the reports, the trial court found defendant was not presently able to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him and not able to assist and cooperate with counsel in presenting a defense. The court referred defendant to the Contra Costa Conditional