People v. Gonzalez CA6

Filed 8/29/23 P. v. Gonzalez CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H049335, H049364 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. C1504229, C1359980)

v.

RUDY ANTHONY GONZALEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal presents a question being considered by the California Supreme Court: does a commitment for treatment of incompetency end when the treating facility files a certification of restoration to competency or when a trial court finds competence has been restored? Two years ago, in Rodriguez v. Superior Court (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 628 (Rodriguez), a panel of this court decided that commitment for treatment of incompetency ends when a certification of restoration is filed. The Supreme Court granted review of Rodriguez, which expressly declined to adopt the reasoning of a decision from Division Three of the First Appellate District, People v. Carr (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1136 (Carr), but declined to depublish Rodriguez, leaving the decision citable for its persuasive value. (Rodriguez v. Superior Court, review granted January 5, 2022, S272129.) In this appeal, defendant Rudy Anthony Gonzalez challenges a trial order that, consistent with Rodriguez, calculated the maximum period of commitment for treatment

of incompetency based on the filing of certifications of restoration of competency. Finding the reasoning in Rodriguez persuasive, we affirm the order of commitment. I. Background A. The Charged Offenses On June 27, 2013, in Case No. C1359980 the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint charging Gonzalez with, among other things, burglary and rape. Nearly two years later, in February 2015, the District Attorney filed another complaint in Case No. C1504229, charging Gonzalez with resisting an officer. The charges in these complaints were repeated in informations filed in September 2016. In both cases, Gonzalez pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. B. The Competency Proceedings In July 2013, pursuant to Penal Code section 1368,1 defense counsel declared a doubt concerning Gonzalez’s competency to stand trial. On December 18, 2013, after suspending proceedings and finding Gonzalez incompetent to stand trial, the trial court committed him to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for treatment to restore his competency to stand trial. On August 18, 2014, the DSH filed a certification that Gonzalez had been restored to competency. Nearly two years later, on June 9, 2016, the trial court found Gonzalez competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal proceedings. In November 2017, defense counsel again declared a doubt concerning Gonzalez’s competency to stand trial. On July 5, 2018, after once again suspending proceedings and finding Gonzalez incompetent to stand trial, the trial court recommitted Gonzalez to DSH for treatment to restore his competency. On August 26, 2019, DSH filed a certification that Gonzalez had again been restored to competency. Nineteen months later, on April 4, 2021, the court found Gonzalez again restored to competency and reinstated the criminal proceedings.