People v. Porter CA1/3

Filed 11/3/25 P. v. Porter CA1/3 [Redacted] NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A171899 v. (Contra Costa County STEVEN MARCUS PORTER, Super. Ct. No. 022401081) Defendant and Appellant. [REDACTED] The trial court declared Steven Marcus Porter incompetent to stand trial and later issued an order authorizing the involuntary administration of medication. (Pen. Code, §§ 1368, 1370, subd. (a)(2)(B); undesignated statutory references are to this code.) He now argues his due process and equal protection rights were violated due to the lack of an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. BACKGROUND In August 2024, Porter was charged with attempted second degree robbery, and it was alleged he personally used a deadly weapon. (§§ 211, 664, 12022, subd. (b)(1).) After his attorney declared a doubt about Porter’s competence, the trial court suspended the proceedings and appointed two medical professionals to evaluate his mental status and assess the need for the involuntary administration of medication. [REDACTED]

1

At an October 2024 hearing, both parties submitted on the issue of competency, and the trial court found Porter incompetent to stand trial. It requested a recommendation for his placement to restore competency and scheduled a hearing to address placement; it also observed both psychologists recommended involuntary medication and indicated it would “take argument” at the commitment hearing.1 At a November 2024 hearing, defense counsel objected to the recommendation regarding placement, and the People submitted on it. The trial court ordered Porter committed to the State Department of State Hospitals. Turning to the issue of involuntary medication, and reiterating the psychologists’ opinions, the court invited argument. Defense counsel argued Porter was voluntarily taking medication while in custody and objected “on due process grounds.” She also objected that the psychologists’ reports lacked a “sufficient basis . . . to make a finding for capacity and dangerousness.” After the People submitted on the reports, the court concluded there was a sufficient basis to authorize the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication as needed and it so ordered. DISCUSSION Porter contends the trial court violated his right to due process by authorizing the involuntary administration of medication without an evidentiary hearing. No violation appears. One has a protected liberty interest to be free from the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. (Sell v. United States (2003) 539 U.S. 166, 178; In re Qawi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1, 14.) “Pretrial detainees” have the same right unless they are dangerous to themselves or others