People v. Robinson CA5

Filed 4/13/23 P. v. Robinson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F084033 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF187220A) v.

ANGELA RENEE ROBINSON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Chad A. Louie, Judge. Linda J. Zachritz, 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, Darren K. Indermill, and Erin Doering, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.

Defendant Angela Renee Robinson was charged with several criminal offenses. Her defense counsel expressed doubt regarding her competency to stand trial. After having her evaluated by a doctor, the trial court found defendant not competent to stand trial and ordered her committed to the California Department of State Hospitals. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court should have appointed a second doctor to evaluate her competence to stand trial pursuant to Penal Code section 13691 because she told the court she did not seek a finding of incompetence to stand trial. Alternatively, she contends that even if her statements were insufficient to trigger a statutory duty for the court to appoint a second doctor to evaluate her, they created a “due process duty” for the court to inquire regarding whether she sought a finding of incompetence. The People disagree with defendant’s factual contention that she informed the court that she did not seek a finding of incompetence to stand trial and argue that defendant cannot demonstrate any prejudice from the purported due process violation. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On October 12, 2021, the Kern County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with burglary (§ 460, subd. (a); count 1), maliciously throwing a caustic chemical with intent to injure (§ 244; count 2), obstructing a law enforcement officer (§ 69; count 3), attempted mayhem (§§ 664, 203; count 4), battery (§ 243, subd. (a); count 5), and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 6). As to count 1, the information further alleged that the residence was occupied during the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). On November 19, 2021, defendant’s counsel expressed doubt as to her competency and requested an evaluation pursuant to section 1368. The court inquired regarding whether defendant was agreeable with the competency determination or