P. v. Stewart CA2/8

California Court of Appeal Jul 31, 2013 No. B239626Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's request for a second competency hearing because the proffered psychological report failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances or provide new evidence casting serious doubt on the prior finding of competency.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a second competency hearing based on the evidence presented by the defendant.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The legal test a trial court applies in deciding whether to order an additional competency hearing is whether a substantial change of circumstances or new evidence casts serious doubt on the prior finding of competency.”

“the trial court was correct in determining that Dr. Rome’s report failed to cast doubt upon the prior finding of competency or show a substantial change in circumstances.”

Filed 7/31/13 P. v. Stewart CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B239626

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA107119-01) v.

JAMES E. STEWART,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ricardo R. Ocampo, Judge. Affirmed.

Jean Matulis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, and Seth P. McCutcheon, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

INTRODUCTION

Defendant James Stewart appeals from the judgment following his plea of no contest to carjacking and personal use of a gun. His sole contention on appeal is the court erred in denying him a second hearing on his competency to stand trial.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. History of the Crime

At approximately 2:00 a.m. on June 20, 2009, Oscar Ramirez was stopped at a red light in Compton. Defendant approached Ramirez’s vehicle from the passenger side and spoke to Ramirez through an open window. Suddenly, defendant pulled out a handgun, pointed it at Ramirez’s head, and threatened to shoot if Ramirez did not step out of the car. Ramirez complied, and defendant proceeded to drive away in the car. Ramirez ran home and called the police. A Compton police officer responded to the call and interviewed Ramirez upon arrival. The officer used his police radio to describe defendant and the vehicle to other officers, and a call came in about twenty minutes later informing him that a suspect had been detained at a nearby gas station. The officer drove Ramirez to the gas station, and Ramirez identified defendant, the gun, and the vehicle. Defendant was arrested and charged with five felonies.1

P. v. Stewart CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B239626

JAMES E. STEWART,

INTRODUCTION

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

C. Second Request for Competency Proceedings

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

BIGELOW, P. J.

FLIER, J.

AI Brief