People v. Bennett CA3

Filed 1/22/26 P. v. Bennett CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C103063

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CR20212111, CR20230488, CR20241951) v.

DAVID BENNETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

After the State Department of State Hospitals (DSH) filed a certificate of mental competence with the trial court pursuant to Penal Code section 1372,1 the trial court rejected the certificate and found defendant had not been restored to competency. On appeal, defendant claims insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding he was not competent to stand trial. We shall affirm.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The People previously charged defendant in three separate cases, and defendant is currently committed to the DSH. We need not detail the underlying facts of defendant’s alleged criminal conduct as they are not relevant to the issue on appeal. In June 2024, the trial court found defendant not competent to stand trial, suspended criminal proceedings, and committed defendant to DSH for competency restoration. In September 2024, the medical director of the state hospital where defendant was receiving treatment submitted a certificate of mental competence to the trial court pursuant to section 1372. DSH also filed a competency report completed by Dr. Felix Sanchez. Dr. Sanchez’s report detailed that defendant endorsed consistent paranoid delusions that the FBI and the government were “conspiring against him,” that his case was resolved and he should be released, and that a DSH staff psychologist was trying to kill him. The report also indicated that defendant adhered to his prescribed medication and continued to make improvement in his overall psychiatric stability. On September 11, 2024, a staff psychologist noted defendant “presented as ‘clear and denied any delusions associated with the FBI,’ ” and discussed his legal strategy without any delusional ideation. On September 12, 2024, Dr. Sanchez met with defendant for a 90-minute interview. During the interview defendant reported he had no symptoms of psychosis, depression, or anxiety. Dr. Sanchez reported that defendant’s expressed emotions appeared to be stable, his stream of thought was within normal parameters, and he was cooperative during the interview. Defendant demonstrated an adequate factual understanding of the criminal proceedings, an appreciation for the seriousness of the charges, and a rational reason to enter a plea agreement. Dr. Sanchez emphasized that during the interview defendant no longer endorsed “paranoid/grandiose delusions related to his case, diminished expression of emotion, thought blocking, grossly disorganized behavior, and irritability.” Dr. Sanchez also reported defendant demonstrated adequate