People v. Lingor CA1/5

Filed 4/16/15 P. v. Lingor CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140996 v. JULIE ANN LINGOR, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C161045) Defendant and Appellant.

In this appeal, Julie Ann Lingor challenges an order revoking her probation. Her sole contention is that the trial court erred in failing to suspend the probation revocation proceedings so that it could conduct a hearing to determine her competency. (Pen. Code, § 1368, subds. (a), (c).)1 After a careful examination of the record, we conclude the evidence before the trial court did not require it to order a competency hearing. Accordingly, we will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2009, Lingor pushed her elderly mother to the ground and threw water on her. Lingor pleaded guilty to elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (b)(1)) and was granted probation. In the succeeding years, her probation was revoked and reinstated following various probation violations. In May 2013, Lingor assaulted a process server, and the Alameda County District Attorney filed a petition to revoke her probation.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

The trial court heard the petition on September 25, 2013. Lingor testified about the charge at the hearing. After the close of the evidence, her counsel informed the court that he was “beginning to entertain doubt as to [his] client’s competency.” Counsel stated he wished to have a further conversation with Lingor before the court made a ruling. The trial court explained it was prepared to rule and that “[w]e’ve had the hearing.” Defense counsel then stated, “I do want the Court to know that I believe my client is incompetent.” He told the court he had not been certain of her incompetence at the beginning of the hearing but argued her incompetence “was abundantly clear from her conduct[.]” He did admit, however, that “reasonable minds would differ.” As evidence of his client’s incompetence, counsel cited Lingor’s “nonresponsiveness, her request whether we’re in a civil court or criminal court, [and] her repeated questions about the welfare of her mother.” The trial court ruled that to the extent Lingor’s counsel had moved to declare a doubt under section 1368 concerning her competence to participate in criminal proceedings, it was “having a real problem at the end of this thinking that I’m supposed to seriously consider that.” The court explained that Lingor “has a history of mental health issues, but she understands what’s going on as far as the Court can tell.” Although she had not been totally cooperative with her counsel, the court found, “She knows what’s going on.” The court then found Lingor in violation of her probation. The trial court revoked Lingor’s probation on December 12, 2013, and sentenced her to three years’ imprisonment. Lingor later filed a notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Lingor contends the trial court erred by not suspending the probation revocation hearing when her counsel declared a doubt as to her competency. She argues this violated her statutory and constitutional rights. Furthermore, she asserts that the court’s failure to suspend proceedings when presented with what she claims is “substantial evidence of a doubt as to appellant’s competency ‘divested [the trial court] of jurisdiction