People v. Scheetz CA4/3

Filed 8/27/24 P. v. Scheetz CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063588

v. (Super. Ct. No. FVI21000983)

CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER OPINION SCHEETZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Shannon Faherty, Judge. Affirmed. Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Anne Spitzberg, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

After a jury found Christopher Alexander Scheetz guilty of multiple sex crimes, he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 63 years to life. Scheetz appeals from the trial court’s denial of his counsel’s request to suspend proceedings and hold a second competency hearing. We conclude he failed to present new evidence or a substantial change in circumstances casting a serious doubt on the validity of the jury’s previous finding that he was competent. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 5, 2021, the San Bernardino County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging Scheetz with two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under age 14. On June 7, 2021, during pretrial proceedings, Scheetz’s counsel declared a doubt as to Scheetz’s competency to stand trial pursuant to Penal 1 Code section 1368 , and the trial court suspended criminal proceedings. On August 5, 2022, a jury found Scheetz competent to stand trial. On August 17, 2022 the district attorney filed an information charging appellant with sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years old or younger (count 1, § 288.7(a)), oral copulation with a child 10 years old or younger (count 2, § 288.7(b)), sexual penetration with a child 10 years old or younger (count 3, § 288.7(b)), and lewd act upon a child under age 14 (count 4, § 288(a)). On September 15, 2022, defense counsel declared a doubt about Scheetz’s competence to stand trial, and stated Scheetz would refuse further evaluations. Counsel did not request another competency hearing, and provided no evidence casting doubt on the prior competency finding.