People v. Turner CA1/3

Filed 11/18/24 P. v. Turner CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169093 v. (Contra Costa County ANTHONY RICHARDO TURNER, Super. Ct. No. 01001948371)

Defendant and Appellant.

Anthony Richardo Turner appeals from a judgment of mental incompetence and a related order of commitment. (Pen. Code, §§ 1368–1370; undesignated statutory references are to this code.) He argues the trial court erred by failing to appoint a second expert to assess his competence. (§ 1369, subd. (a)(1).) We affirm. BACKGROUND In December 2020, the district attorney charged Turner with driving or taking away a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); receiving stolen property (§ 496d, subd. (a)); and a variety of prior offense allegations (§§ 666.5, 667, subds. (d)–(e)). At an August 2023 hearing, Turner made concurrent motions to represent himself (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 834) and to relieve counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118). In response to the trial court’s questions about the risks of representing

1

oneself, Turner expressed an understanding of the gravity of the charges and possible sentences, and he noted he would seek and review discovery. But the court expressed concerns as to his competence to stand trial after he made unclear statements about having legal training, that he had “false” records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation about him, and that he was his “own corporation,” making him “solvent” and “immune” from his charges. When the court explained the need for an independent assessment of competence by mental health professionals, Turner objected. The following day, the trial court denied Turner’s Marsden motion, finding no good cause to excuse and replace his defense counsel.1 The court declined to rule on his Faretta motion and instead referred him for competency proceedings. In response, Turner stated the prosecution had never raised an issue about his competence. Turner acknowledged he had been found incompetent in a previous case but attempted to distinguish those circumstances — being in shock regarding the death of a person — from those at issue here. The court set a date for the initiation of competency proceedings. At the outset of the competency proceedings before a different judge, Turner’s counsel informed the trial court “there is no objection. So we are only requesting one doctor.” The court accordingly appointed one expert to assess whether Turner was competent to stand trial and represent himself. The psychiatrist subsequently opined Turner was impaired in his ability to understand the nature and purpose of the criminal proceedings, and he believed certain courtroom procedures were part of a conspiracy against him. At the October 2023 competency hearing, Turner’s counsel and the prosecutor