People v. Turner CA1/2

Filed 6/1/23 P. v. Turner CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A164858 v. CURTIS MARQUIS TURNER, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 2-334434-8) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Curtis Turner appeals from an order finding him not competent to stand trial and committing him to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) pursuant to Penal Code section 1367 et seq.1 His appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, asking us to consider his appeal as prescribed in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the appeal is moot, and we therefore dismiss it. BACKGROUND On May 4, 2021, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging Turner with indecent exposure – unlawful entry (§ 314, subd. (1)) (count 1); carrying a dirk or dagger (§ 21310) (count 2); and simple battery (§§ 242/243, subd. (a)) (count 3). The complaint also alleged

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

that Turner committed the charged offenses in violation of a grant of probation and a grant of mandatory supervision (§ 1203.3). On May 14, defense counsel declared a doubt about Turner’s competency. The trial court suspended criminal proceedings and, on May 19, appointed two psychologists pursuant to section 1368 to evaluate Turner’s competence —Dr. Marlin Griffith and Dr. Alexis Smith—with written reports due July 1. Dr. Griffith opined that Turner was a “mentally competent individual,” and Dr. Smith found that Turner was “likely competent to stand trial.” The record does not reflect that the trial court made any findings based on these reports, and at a December 1 hearing, the trial court noted that the issue of Turner’s competency was “still unresolved.” On January 6, 2022, pursuant to the parties’ request, the court reappointed Dr. Smith to again evaluate Turner’s competence. On February 14, Dr. Smith submitted a written report noting that in her June 2021 evaluation of Turner, she had been “equivocal about his competency to stand trial,” observing that “[h]is mental state appears to have deteriorated significantly since he was seen several months ago,” and concluding that Turner “should be adjudicated incompetent to stand trial.” On February 16, after the parties submitted on the psychologists’ reports, the trial court found Turner incompetent and referred the matter to the Contra Costa Conditional Release Program (CONREP) for a placement evaluation. On March 2, the trial court indicated that it had received CONREP’s recommendation that Turner be referred to DSH for competency training. The parties submitted on the recommendation, and the trial court ordered Turner committed to DSH for two years for competency training and treatment.