People v. Price CA5

Filed 4/19/22 P. v. Price CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F082935 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF180819A) v.

CURTIS PRICE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge. Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Sally Espinoza, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION While facing felony assault and battery charges, Curtis Price (appellant) was found incompetent to stand trial, unlikely to regain competency in the foreseeable future, and ineligible for a conservatorship. Based on these findings, the trial court ordered appellant released from confinement but denied his motion to dismiss the underlying charges. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss because he was found unlikely to regain competency and ineligible for a conservatorship. Respondent concedes the motion to dismiss should have been granted but contends the appeal should be dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order. We agree the order denying the motion to dismiss is not appealable, but in light of respondent’s concession, we elect to treat the appeal as a petition for extraordinary relief, and issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to grant the motion to dismiss. BACKGROUND The Kern County District Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint charging appellant with battery causing serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d))1 and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). We need not discuss the facts underlying appellant’s conviction in detail because they are not relevant to this appeal. Appellant was arraigned in custody on May 7, 2020. At his next court appearance, his trial counsel declared a doubt as to his competence to stand trial pursuant to section 1368, and the court suspended criminal proceedings. On July 10, 2020, the court found appellant not competent to stand trial based on the report of a court-appointed mental health examiner, and at the next court hearing, the court ordered appellant committed to the state hospital.