People v. Torrez CA5

Filed 5/16/23 P. v. Torrez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F085501 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F22903372) v.

LARRY ORDUNA TORREZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Leanne Le Mon, 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-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

Defendant Larry Orduna Torrez challenges the trial court’s finding of incompetence, arguing it is flawed because of the failure to order a second evaluation pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1369, subdivision (a). Our review of the record provided to this court leads us to conclude there was no error on the part of the court in failing to order a second evaluation, and further that the finding of incompetence to proceed was supported by the record. We affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On May 10, 2022, a felony complaint was filed alleging defendant committed one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), a felony). The complaint further alleged defendant had two prior felony convictions pursuant to section 1203, subdivision (e)(4). During a hearing held one week later, defense counsel expressed doubts about defendant’s competence. The court then suspended proceedings and appointed a doctor to complete an evaluation of defendant’s competency. Although an initial hearing date had been scheduled for June 2022, delays due to defendant being placed into quarantine twice, resulted in a report not being available until September 2022. After summarizing defendant’s psychiatric history and the various psychological tests administered, Dr. Howard Terrell stated, “defendant presented as a paranoid, psychotic and irrational gentleman.” Terrell then offered his opinion defendant “suffers from a psychotic mental disorder, which renders him unable to assist his attorney in a rational manner for the preparation of a legal defense.” A hearing was eventually held on September 30, 2022, at which time defendant was present. The court received the report prepared by Terrell and asked if counsel was willing to stipulate to the report. Both defense counsel and the People answered in the affirmative. The court then found defendant to be incompetent based on Terrell’s report