People v. Hays

California Court of Appeal Jan 23, 1976 No. Crim. 14515Published

Before: Scott

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of mental competence unless there is substantial evidence of doubt regarding their competence, and the trial court correctly found no such evidence existed in this case.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant a jury trial to determine his mental competence during probation revocation proceedings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a defendant is entitled to a hearing on the issue of his mental competence if the trial judge has a doubt as to the defendant’s mental competence; defendant is not entitled to a court or jury trial of the issue of his mental competence”

“There still must be substantial evidence of doubt as to defendant’s mental competence before he is entitled to a section 1368 hearing.”

“the record supports the trial court’s finding that there was no substantial evidence of doubt as to defendant’s mental competence, and that the court did not err in denying the defendant a jury trial of that issue.”

Opinion

SCOTT, j.

On appeal from an order revoking probation, the issue is whether the defendant’s probation was revoked without a proper hearing and determination of his mental competence pursuant to sections 1367, 1368, and 1369 of the Penal Code. Defendant contends there was substantial evidence of doubt as to his mental competence and, therefore, the trial court erred in denying his right to a jury trial to determine his mental competence.

(Pate

Robinson

(1966) 383 U.S. 375 [15 L.Ed.2d 815, 86 S.Ct. 836];

People

Laudermilk

(1967) 67 Cal.2d 272 [61 Cal.Rptr. 644, 431 P.2d 228];

People

Pennington

(1967) 66 Cal.2d 508 [58 Cal.Rptr. 374, 426 P.2d 942];

People

Westbrook

(1964) 62 Cal.2d 197 [41 Cal.Rptr. 800, 397 P.2d 545];

People

Humphrey

(1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 32 [119 Cal.Rptr. 74].)

The record shows that a hearing on a motion to revoke the defendant’s probation was set for June 3, 1975. At the commencement of that hearing defendant’s counsel told the court that in his opinion the defendant was unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and was unable to cooperate with counsel. Defense counsel requested that the

[758]

court appoint a psychiatrist to examine the defendant. The court granted counsel’s request and appointed Dr. Arthur B. Carfagni, a psychiatrist, to examine the defendant. The court suspended the criminal proceedings, pursuant to section 1368 of the Penal Code, and continued the matter to June 12.

People v. Hays

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief