The People v. Arteaga CA6

Filed 8/26/13 P. v. Arteaga CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H038236 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. CC815385)

v.

LORENZO ARTEAGA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Lorenzo Arteaga appeals from an order finding him incompetent to stand trial and committing him to the Department of Mental Health pursuant to Penal Code section 1370, subdivision (a)(2).1 On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by refusing to hold a hearing on his Marsden motion. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).) We will reverse the commitment order and remand for a Marsden hearing.

BACKGROUND On August 19, 2008, the District Attorney filed a complaint alleging that defendant failed to register as a sex offender (§ 290.015, subd. (a)) and had 11 prior convictions that qualified as strikes (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise.

Defendant was committed to Atascadero State Hospital (Atascadero) on June 10, 2009 after being found incompetent to stand trial.2 (See § 1370.) On February 14, 2011, the medical director of Atascadero filed a report certifying that defendant‘s competency had been restored. (See § 1372.) Criminal proceedings were reinstated on March 21, 2011. Defendant was granted the right to represent himself on March 23, 2011. (See Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806.) Defendant continued to represent himself over the next several months. On December 9, 2011, the trial court declared a doubt as to defendant‘s competency to stand trial and suspended criminal proceedings. (See § 1368.) On December 14, 2011, the trial court revoked defendant‘s pro per status and appointed the Public Defender‘s Office to represent him. After the appointment, Deputy Public Defender Mallory Street noted that defendant objected ―to a doubt being declared,‖ and she requested that two doctors be appointed to evaluate defendant. The trial court appointed Brent Hughey, Ph.D. for one of the evaluations. Dr. Hughey filed his report on January 10, 2012. He had evaluated defendant for one hour, 30 minutes. Defendant initially made a ―considerable effort to present himself in a favorable and ‗normal‘ manner.‖ However, his ―mental health symptomatology‖ began to show; it included ―increasing pressured speech, considerable rambling and tangential train of thought with frequent references to various legal matters or letters, . . . regardless of the topic or specific question being posed.‖ Towards the end of the evaluation, defendant ―began exhibiting paranoid delusional beliefs.‖ Dr. Hughey concluded that defendant had a ―significantly impaired ability to rationally cooperate with counsel as a result of a decompensated mental state as a result of schizophrenia of the paranoid type.‖ Dr. Hughey recommended that he be restarted on