People v. Brackett CA3

Filed 2/15/23 P. v. Brackett CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096309

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF2200263, CRF2200544, CRF2200560) v.

DEMOND CHARLES BRACKETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Demond Charles Brackett appeals from an order committing him to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) following a finding that he was incompetent to stand trial in three criminal matters. His appointed counsel has filed a brief asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) While we are not required to independently review the record in these circumstances (People v. Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020, 1024-1025 (Blanchard)), our discretionary review of the record reveals no meritorious issues. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In February 2022, defendant was charged with assault upon a custodial officer (CRF22-263). The following month, he was charged in two separate cases with battery against a custodial officer (CRF22-544) and threatening a public officer (CRF22-560). In the latter two cases, defendant was alleged to have a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. On March 21, 2022, a day before the third of these cases was filed, defendant’s trial counsel declared a doubt regarding defendant’s competence to stand trial in the first two matters. The question of defendant’s mental competence was submitted on psychiatric evaluations that were conducted in connection with two prior cases that are not at issue in this appeal. Defendant’s attorney informed the trial court that defendant had already been committed to DSH in those matters and was awaiting transport. Based on these prior evaluations, the trial court found defendant incompetent to stand trial in the new matters and suspended criminal proceedings. On April 7, 2022, the same doubt was declared with respect to defendant’s competence to stand trial in the third case at issue in this appeal. Criminal proceedings were suspended in this matter as well. However, rather than find defendant to be incompetent based on the prior evaluations, the trial court “reappoint[ed] Dr. Daisy Switzer to give an updated opinion of [d]efendant’s competency” for purposes of all three cases and ordered a hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1369. Statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. At the hearing, held on April 28, 2022, the parties submitted the matter on the report filed by Dr. Switzer, as well as two previous reports filed in the prior cases noted above. Dr. Switzer concluded that while defendant was presently able to understand the nature of the proceedings, he did not presently have sufficient mental capacity to consult with an attorney and assist rationally in the formation of a defense. As the doctor