People v. McGee CA1/2

Filed 4/21/23 P. v. McGee CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A165873 v. JASON EDWARD McGEE, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 04–204018–6) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jason McGee appeals from orders finding him not competent to stand trial and committing him to the Department of State Hospitals pursuant to Penal Code section 1370 et seq. Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief setting forth the applicable facts and law pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). Appointed counsel informed defendant that he could file a supplemental brief and that the court would likely dismiss his appeal if he did not file a supplemental brief. This court provided defendant further notice, pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231–232, that his appeal could be dismissed as abandoned if no supplemental brief were filed within 30 days. Defendant has not filed a timely supplemental brief. Our discretionary review of the record discloses no arguable issues, and we therefore affirm.

1

BACKGROUND On March 23, 2022, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a felony criminal complaint against defendant charging him with two counts of arson of a structure or forest (Pen. Code,1 § 451, subd. (c)), based on incidents alleged to have occurred in Antioch on March 18 and March 21, 2022. On April 7, 2022, the day scheduled for the preliminary examination, defense counsel informed the court that defendant wished to represent himself, and expressed a doubt about defendant’s competence to stand trial. The court (Hon. Jon R. Rolefson) also expressed a doubt regarding defendant’s competence and suspended the criminal proceedings pursuant to section 1368 et seq. At a hearing on April 13, 2022, defense counsel reported that defendant “objects to this process and very much wants this Court to proceed to find him not guilty today.” The trial court (Hon. Laurel S. Brady) appointed psychologists Corey Hahn and Melissa Johnson to evaluate defendant and appointed Donald Siggins as “the backup.” All three psychologists prepared evaluations. Dr. Johnson and Dr. Siggins concluded defendant was competent to stand trial. Dr. Hahn concluded defendant was not competent to stand trial. At a hearing on May 18, 2022, defense counsel submitted the issue of competency based on the three reports. Defense counsel stated, “. . . Dr. Hahn’s report is the most comprehensive, and I concur in his . . . conclusion. [¶] He is the only of the three doctors who has reached out to me for my input. Additionally, he is the only of the three doctors who reviewed the full record.” The prosecutor “concur[red] with defense counsel’s analysis and conclusion of submitting on” the reports.