People v. Ricky S.

[234]

Opinion

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

Ricky S., a minor, was charged with attempted grand theft, attempted robbery, and battery. Following a contested competency hearing, the minor was found competent to stand trial. A contested jurisdictional hearing was conducted which resulted in only the battery charge being sustained. The minor was declared a ward of the juvenile court and placed on home probation.

On appeal, the minor contends (1) the competency finding must be reversed because the court used the wrong standard in making its determination, (2) the court abused its discretion by failing to consider whether to limit his parents’ rights to make educational decisions for him, and (3) the court failed to consider him for deferred entry of judgment.

Agreeing with the minor’s first contention, we shall reverse the orders of competency and wardship and remand for further proceedings.

1

DISCUSSION

It is well established that the criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates the due process clause of the state and federal Constitutions.

(Medina

v.

California

(1992) 505 U.S. 437, 453 [120 L.Ed.2d 353, 368, 112 S.Ct. 2572].) Like an adult defendant, a minor has a right to a competency hearing in juvenile delinquency proceedings.

(James H.

v.

Superior Court

(1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 169, 174-175 [143 Cal.Rptr. 398].) The standard applied in adult criminal proceedings is also applied in juvenile delinquency proceedings, namely, whether the accused “ ‘ “has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” ’ ”