People v. De La Rosa CA3

Filed 9/8/14 P. v. De La Rosa CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073061

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM035627)

v.

RUDY FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Rudy Francisco De La Rosa appeals from an order committing him to the trial competency program at Napa State Hospital pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1370.2 He contends insufficient evidence supports the finding that he was not

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The commitment order is appealable. (People v. Fields (1965) 62 Cal.2d 538, 540-541; People v. Christiana (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1045-1046.)

1

competent to stand trial. He also contends that after the court decided his placement at Napa State Hospital, the trial court erred in denying him an opportunity to be heard. While defendant’s appeal was pending in this court, defense appellate counsel advised this court that on April 2, 2013, the trial court terminated defendant’s commitment, finding that defendant had been restored to competency, and reinstated criminal proceedings. Defendant then entered a plea and the court granted probation. Relying solely upon People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742, the People argue the issues have been rendered moot due to defendant’s restoration to competency and the resumption of criminal proceedings during which defendant entered a plea and was granted probation. Defendant disagrees the issues are moot, arguing that the People have ignored post-Lindsey cases discussing the continuing stigma of a wrongful commitment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana for sale and had served two prior prison terms. He was also charged with misdemeanor possession. On April 10, 2012, defense counsel stated: “[A]t this time I’m going to express a doubt as to [defendant]’s mental condition. I’m asking the Court to have him examined-- [¶] . . . [¶] . . . based on 1368 and/or 1369.” Prior to the hearing, defense counsel had spoken to defendant and said “he was in custody the last time I talked to him” but had been released. Based on defense counsel’s expression of doubt, the court suspended criminal proceedings and appointed Paul R. Wuehler, Ph.D. “to assist the Court.” On June 5, 2012, the parties submitted on Dr. Wuehler’s report. Dr. Wuehler had reviewed the police report, the charge sheet, the order for examination, and the “[e]xaminer’s own previous report on this defendant dated November 16, 2006.” During his interview with defendant, Dr. Wuehler was unable to obtain a complete background from defendant because his responses were “rather minimal, sometimes almost empty” and “rather scatter[ed], and occasionally confused.” Defendant answered