People v. Wilkins CA6

Filed 4/12/16 P. v. Wilkins CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H041434 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1480069)

v.

LEON EUGENE WILKINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Leon Eugene Wilkins appeals from the superior court’s order committing him to the Department of State Hospitals. He contends that the court erred in failing to consider him for outpatient treatment and in failing to deduct credit for time served in jail from the three-year maximum commitment period. Defendant concedes that his contentions are moot because he was restored to competency a few months after the court’s order, and the criminal proceedings resumed and were resolved over a year ago. He asks us to reach his contentions despite their mootness. We decline.

I. Background In April 2014, defendant was charged by felony complaint with a sex offender 1 registration violation (Pen. Code, § 290.013, subd. (a)), possession of a controlled

1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(2)(A)). The complaint also alleged that defendant had served a prison term for a prior felony conviction (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In May 2014, his trial counsel declared a doubt about his competency. The court found that there was a doubt about defendant’s competency, and it suspended the criminal proceedings pending a determination of defendant’s competency. Two doctors appointed by the court found defendant, who suffers from schizophrenia, to be incompetent to stand trial. In August 2014, the court ordered South Bay CONREP (CONREP) to prepare a treatment recommendation. CONREP’s one-page treatment recommendation stated that defendant was ineligible for outpatient treatment under section 1601 and recommended a commitment to the Department of State Hospitals. CONREP’s ineligibility determination was apparently premised on the nature of defendant’s prior convictions for assault and battery. In September 2014, defendant’s trial counsel submitted the matter on CONREP’s recommendation. The court accepted CONREP’s recommendation, found defendant to be incompetent to stand trial, and committed him to the Department of State Hospitals for a maximum term of three years for care and treatment to restore his competency. The court did not award defendant any credit against this term for the time he had spent in jail prior to his commitment. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal from the court’s commitment order. In December 2014, the court found that defendant’s competence had been restored, and the criminal proceedings resumed. The complaint was amended to charge the possession count as a misdemeanor, and defendant entered no contest pleas to all three counts and admitted the prison prior allegation. He was granted probation conditioned on serving a one-year jail term. Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel notified this court of these developments in March 2015, prior to filing his opening appellate brief. In his opening appellate brief,