WPC B;'AqU8tK) *QLqU$Gik cP!D|{o%u|aVՅkvWa@q`5M&*֒ O%G:2Hs%ofP@ή1otED _/[^eMG*UoDz> T+C(uc1b`e0U)<')5xFt$.S7ʵW}~w4j,CMh(_҉= b۠8}%.g 6T3.;Nä\aȜBݎ<;JS7| > FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  #RuQQ Ru#TRAININGSEMINAR#CQRu#RuQC RuQQRu E @ZZ"@@VV"# CQ Ruj#  CJanuary31,2009 : # C # hJ C  SELECTISSUESSURROUNDING  C COMPETENCYTOSTANDTRIAL   # C hJ# hJ C@*# C hJ:#  CԈ  @@00$JeremyPrice# C # RuQ C !  # CQ Ru# RuQ C    Z #RuQQ Ru##CQRuT#  8Cdd8TABLEOFCONTENTS  TableofAuthoritiest"t"H(#. iii  y,  Vm  Vm0     Introduction#""J(#.(#(##1Vm݌   Ќ  Vm  Vm0     TheFederalConstitutionalTrialCompetencyStandard#""J(#.DD>(#(##1Vm݌   Ќ  Vm  Vm0     IncompetencyDistinguishedFromInsanity#""J(#.RR2(#(##2Vm݌    Ќ  Vm  Vm\0     EvidenceofMentalIllnessorDevelopmentalDisabilityNotPerSeProofOf y  IncompetenceToStandTrial#""J(#.*(#(##2Vm\x݌ t  Ќ  Vm  Vm 0     SuspensionofCriminalProceedings#""J(#.,(#(##2Vm ݌ j  Ќ  Vm  VmX 0     TheQuestionofCompetencyCannotBeWaivedAfteraDoubtHasBeenDeclared#""J(#. U(#(##4VmX t ݌ ` Ќ  Vm  VmS 0     UponSuspensionofCriminalProceedings,TrialCourtsMayNotEntertain_Faretta_ V MotionsforSelfRepresentation#""J(#..(#(##4VmS o ݌ Q Ќ  Vm  Vm 0     TrialCourtsMustEntertain_Marsden_ԀMotionsEvenAftertheSuspensionofCriminal G ProceedingstoHoldaCompetencyHearing#""J(#.7(#(##5Vm ݌ B Ќ  Vm  Vm0     CourtsHaveaContinuingDutytoSuspendProceedingsIfaDoubtArisesastothe 8 DefendantsCompetencyEvenAfterTrialHasAlreadyStarted#""J(#.xxJ(#(##5Vm,݌ 3 Ќ  Vm  Vmc0     AppointmentofExperts#""J(#. (#(##6Vmc݌ )y Ќ  Vm  Vm)0     TrialbyJury#""J(#. (#(##6Vm)E݌ !o Ќ  Vm  Vm0     PresumptionofCompetence#""J(#.HH#(#(##7Vm݌ #e Ќ  Vm  Vm0     CivilDiscoveryRulesApplyToCompetencyProceedings#""J(#.vv?(#(##7Vm݌  %[ ! Ќ  Vm  Vm0     StatementsfromCourtOrderedCompetencyEvaluationsMayNotBeUsedatTrial#""J(#.!!W(#(##7Vm݌ 'Q"# Ќ  Vm  Vm0     AFindingofCompetencyisSubjecttoSubstantialEvidenceReviewonAppeal#""J(#.U(#(##8Vm݌ (G$% Ќ  Vm  Vm0     ToObtainaSecondCompetencyHearing,ThereMustBeEvidenceofaSubstantial *=&' ChangeofCircumstancesorNewEvidence#""J(#.6(#(##8Vm݌ +8'( Ќ  TheDefendantMustbeCompetentinordertoEnteraGuiltyorNoContestPlea""J(#.W8  Vm  VmE0     WhetheraCertificateofProbableCauseisRequiredToChallengeaCompetency  DeterminationonDirectAppealFollowingaGuiltyorNoContestPleaDepends  ontheTimingoftheAllegedIncompetency#""J(#.8(#(##9VmEa݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm0     CaliforniasStatutoryCompetencyFrameworkAppliestoProbationRevocation   Proceedings#""J(#.( ( (#(##9Vm݌   Ќ  Vm  Vm0     MinorsMayNotBeAdjudgedDelinquentWardsIfMentallyIncompetent#P"P"I(#.M(#(##10Vm݌    Ќ  Vm  Vm0     CriminalDefendantsFoundIncompetenttoStandTrialareCommittedtotheState y  Hospital#P"P"I(#. (#(##12Vm݌ t  Ќ  Vm  Vm0     CriminalProceedingsAreReinstatedWhenTheDefendantsCompetencyHasBeen j  Restored#P"P"I(#.  (#(##13Vm,݌ e Ќ  Vm  Vm-0     NoConductCreditsTowardStatePrisonSentenceForTimeSpentCivillyCommittedas [ Incompetent#P"P"I(#.> > (#(##13Vm-I݌ V Ќ  Vm  VmQ0     AnOrderCommittingaDefendanttotheStateHospitalasIncompetenttoStandTrialis L anAppealableOrder#P"P"I(#."(#(##13VmQm݌ G Ќ  Vm  Vm0     AFindingofCompetencyisNotAppealableButMayBeReviewedUponJudgmentof = Conviction#P"P"I(#. (#(##14Vm݌ 8 Ќ  Vm  Vm0     ForcedMedication#P"P"I(#.  (#(##14Vm݌ .~ Ќ   CC  )y #C Cp #  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES       FEDERALCASES      2%#XAtkinsv.Virginia(2002)536U.S.304""I%#.02  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Drope_Ԁv.Missouri(1975)420U.S.162 ! !C%#./1,3,5   ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XDuskyv.UnitedStates(1960)362U.S.402u!u!E%#.tt41,11   ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XEstellev.Smith(1981)451U.S.454""I%#.  .7   ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Faretta_Ԁv.California(1975)422U.S.806""I%#.34 x  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Godinez_Ԁv.Moran(1993)509U.S.389!!F%#..4,9 n  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XInre_Gault_(1967)387U.S.1M"M"H%#.'10 d ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XIndianav.Edwards(2008)554U.S.___[128_S.Ct_.2379]!!F%#.EEA4,5 Z ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Morrissey_Ԁv.Brewer(1972)408U.S.471""I%#.19 P ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPatev.Robinson(1966)383U.S.375!!F%#..2,3 F ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XSellv.UnitedStates(2003)539U.S.166M"M"H%#.314 < ?+ ` hp x 2%#?  STATECASES  2    2%#X_Baqleh_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt(2002)100_Cal.App_.4th478""I%#.=7 * z ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XCarterv.SuperiorCourt(2006)141_Cal.App_.4th992M"M"H%#.=15  "p ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XInreDavis(1973)8Cal.3d798M"M"H%#.~~)12 $f  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XInrePatrickH.(1997)54_Cal.App_.4th1346M"M"H%#.510  &\!" ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XInre_Ricky_ԀS.(2008)166_Cal.App_.4th232M"M"H%#.312 (R#$ ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XJamesH.v.SuperiorCourt(1978)77_Cal.App_.3d169M"M"H%#.=10 )H%& ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Ary_(2004)118_Cal.App_.4th1016""I%#.nn33 +>'( Peoplev.Callahan(2006)144_Cal.App_.4th678M"M"H%#.713  Peoplev.Castro(2000)78_Cal.App_.4th1402""I%#.56  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Fields(1965)62Cal.2d5381 1 A%#./1,13,14  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Hale(1988)44Cal.3d531!!F%#.-4,8   ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Harris(1993)14_Cal.App_.4th984""I%#.46   ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Hill(1967)67Cal.2d105""I%#.-1 |  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Hofferber_(1977)70_Cal.App_.3d265!!F%#.vv62,8 r  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Horton(1995)11Cal.4th1068""I%#.15 h  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Humphrey(1975)45_Cal.App_.3d32M"M"H%#.FF410 ^ ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Jablonski_(2006)37Cal.4th774!!F%#.37,8 T ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Jenan_(2007)148_Cal.App_.4th1144""I%#.::54 J ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Jones(1997)15Cal.4th119""I%#./8 @ ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Kaplan(2007)149_Cal.App_.4th372""I%#.FF58 6 ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Karriker_(2007)149_Cal.App_.4th763M"M"H%#.712 ,| ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Laudermilk_(1967)67Cal.2d272""I%#.\\39 " r ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Lawley_(2002)27Cal.4th102""I%#.$$08 "h ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Leonard(2007)40Cal.4th1370""I%#.26 $^  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Marks(1988)45Cal.3d1335!!F%#.  /4,5 &T!" ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Marsden_(1970)2Cal.3d118""I%#.  /5 'J#$ ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Masterson(1994)8Cal.4th965!!F%#.26,7 )@%& ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._McDuffie_(2006)144_Cal.App_.4th880M"M"H%#.715 +6'( Peoplev._McPeters_(1992)2Cal.4th1148""I%#.26  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Mendez(1999)19Cal.4th1084""I%#.19  Peoplev.O'Dell(2005)126_Cal.App_.4th562M"M"H%#.  515  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Oglesby_(2008)158_Cal.App_.4th818""I%#.69   ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Pennington_(1967)66Cal.2d,508 B%#.43,4,10   ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Pokovich_(2006)39Cal.4th1240!!F%#.DD31,8 |  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Rells_(2000)22Cal.4th860u!u!E%#.dd/7,13 r  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Robinson(2007)151_Cal.App_.4th606""I%#.76 h  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Rogers(2006)39Cal.4th826!!F%#.01,4 ^ ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Samuel(1981)29Cal.3d489!!F%#./6,8 T ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Solorzano_(2005)126_Cal.App_.4th1063""I%#.95 J ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Stankewitz_(1982)32Cal.3d80!!F%#.22,3 @ ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Stanley(1995)10Cal.4th764!!F%#.0011,7 6 ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.SuperiorCourt(_McPeters_)(1985)169_Cal.App_.3d796""I%#.G6 ,| ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Waterman(1986)42Cal.3d565M"M"H%#.113 " r ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Tarantino_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt(1975)48_Cal.App_.3d465""I%#.LL>8 "h ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XTimothyJ.v.SuperiorCourt(2007)150_Cal.App_.4th847M"M"H%#.$$A11 $^  ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XTyroneB.v.SuperiorCourt(2008)164_Cal.App_.4th227M"M"H%#.@12 &T!" ?+ ` hp x 2%#?  'J#$   FEDERALCONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONS     UnitedStatesConstitution     FifthAmendment!!G(#. 7,8    SixthAmendment""J(#.. . 5    FourteenthAmendment ! !D(#.#1,5,7     STATERULESANDSTATUTES      CaliforniaRulesofCourt     ?+ ` hp x X?  Rule5.645 ! !E(#. 10, @ 11   ?+ ` hp x X? CodeofCivilProcedure  |    904.1P"P"I(#. 15 y   PenalCode  o   13674 4 B(#.Z Z 2,10,11 l   1367etseq.x!x!F(#.  @ 2,10 g   13684 4 A(#.Z Z 3, @` 4,7,8 b   1369@(#.Z Z  @` 4,6,7,13 ]   1370X X C(#.Z Z 4,1215 X   1372P"P"I(#.Z Z 13 S ?+ ` hp x X? WelfareandInstitutionsCode  I   601P"P"I(#.10 F   602P"P"I(#.10 A   707P"P"I(#.12 <   4500""J(#.Z Z 6 7   6550P"P"I(#.Z Z 11 2  ?+ ` hp x X? CC  OTHERAUTHORITIES  ("x   #C CX# CC#C CmY#AdvisoryCom.com,WestsCaliforniaRulesofCourt(2006rev.ed.)_foll_.rule1498  $p    P"P"I(#.10 CCԈ %k !  CaliforniaCriminalJuryInstruction  'a"#   No6451""J(#. 7#C CcZ# CCԈ  (^#$ _ #C C*[#  Introduction  [   Althoughinquiriesintothementalcompetenceofcriminaldefendantsariseinthecontext  ofcriminalprosecutions,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthasrepeatedlydeemed  competencyproceedingstobespecialproceedingsthatarecivilinnature.(Peoplev.  Pokovich(2006)39Cal.4th1240,1269;Peoplev.Stanley(1995)10Cal.4th764,807;   Peoplev.Hill(1967)67Cal.2d105,114;Peoplev.Fields(1965)62Cal.2d538,540.)   Consequently,theprocessaffordedcriminaldefendantsduringcompetencyproceedings   _differs_Ԁfromtheprocessotherwiseaffordedthembystatutoryandconstitutionalcriminal   lawprovisions.    Thesematerialswillprovideanoverviewofthesubstantivefederalconstitutional {  standardthatmustinformcompetencyproceedingsandtheproceduresCaliforniahas v  implementedtoensurethatcompetencyrequirementismet. q  Becauseappellatepractitionersmostoftenconfrontcompetencyquestionsafteraclients g convictionbytrialorplea,thesematerialswillfocusonissuesthatmayofferavenuesto b challengebothconvictionandsentenceoncompetencygrounds.Commonappellate ] claimsinthiscontextinvolve:thetrialcourtsfailuretosuspendcriminalproceedings X whenpresentedwithsubstantialevidenceofthedefendantsincompetency;the S sufficiencyoftheevidenceinsupportofthetrieroffactsfindingofcompetencyor N incompetency;andthedenialorgrantingofthedefendantsrequestforself I representation.Thesematerialsareintendedtoprovideastartingpointforresearching D theseandanumberorothercompetencyrelatedissues. ? Inaddition,thesematerialswilltouchoncompetencyissuesinprobationrevocationand 5 juveniledelinquencyproceedingsaswellasissuesrelatedtocivilcommitmentfollowing 0 afindingofincompetency. +{    TheFederalConstitutionalTrialCompetencyStandard  %e  !!q TheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution #i prohibitsstatesfromtryingorconvictingcriminaldefendantswhoarenotmentally $d  competent.(Dropev.Missouri(1975)420U.S.162,181;Peoplev.Rogers(2006)39 %_ ! Cal.4th826,846.)AccordingtotheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,tobecompetent,a  &Z!" defendantmusthavebotha sufficientpresentabilitytoconsultwithhislawyerwitha 'U"# reasonabledegreeofrationalunderstandingand arationalaswellasfactual (P#$ understandingoftheproceedingsagainsthim.(Duskyv.UnitedStates(1960)362U.S. (K$% 402,402,internalquotationmarksomitted.) )F%& WhiletheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasnotadoptedacomprehensivesetof +<'( proceduralrulesthatstatesmustimplementtoprotectthefederalconstitutional  competencyrequirement, stateproceduresmustbeadequatetoprotectthisright.(Pate  v.Robinson(1966)383U.S.375,378.)Californiasstatutoryframeworksettingforththe  rulesgoverningcompetencyproceedingsduringcriminalprosecutionsisfoundatPenal  Codesection1367etseq.Inaccordancewiththecompetencystandardfirstarticulated  bytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinDusky,PenalCodesection1367proscribestrying   orpunishingacriminaldefendantwho, asaresultofmentaldisorderordevelopmental   disability,...isunabletounderstandthenatureofthecriminalproceedingsortoassist   counselintheconductofadefenseinarationalmanner.(Pen.Code,1367,subd.(a).)      IncompetencyDistinguishedFromInsanity  /m  ~  Competencetostandtrialisacompletelyseparateconceptfromthequestionofthe v  defendantsstateofmindatthetimeofthecommissionoftheallegedoffense(s). q   Apleaofnotguiltybyreasonofinsanityreferstothedefendantsmentalstateatthe g timeofthecommissionofthecrime,amentalstatewhichisdistinguishablefromthat b whichisrequiredofadefendantbeforehemaybeallowedtostandtrial.[(Citation.)] ] Forexample,evenifthedefendantissufferingfromthesamementaldisturbancewith X whichhewasafflictedatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrime,hemaystillbe S competenttostandtrialaslongasheisabletounderstandthenatureoftheproceedings N takenagainsthimandisabletoassistcounselinpresentingadefense.(Pen.Code, I 1367.)(Peoplev.Hofferber(1977)70Cal.App.3d265,269.) D    EvidenceofMentalIllnessorDevelopmentalDisabilityNotPerSeProofOf : IncompetenceToStandTrial  q  7 PenalCodesection1367requiresevidenceofamentaldisorderordevelopmental / disabilityasapredicateforafindingofincompetencetostandtrial.(Pen.Code,1367.) * z However,evidenceofmentaldisorderoradevelopmentaldisabilitydoesnotrendera %!u criminaldefendantincompetentperse.(Seee.g.Atkinsv.Virginia(2002)536U.S.304,  "p 318.) #k Thementaldisorderordevelopmentaldisabilitymustbethecauseofthedefendants %a ! inabilitytomeettheDuskystandardinorderforhimorhertobefoundincompetent.  &\!"    SuspensionofCriminalProceedings  3u  (R#$ AccordingtotheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,whenacriminaldefendant hascome )J%& forwardwithsubstantialevidenceofincompetencetostandtrial,dueprocessrequiresthat *E&' afullcompetencyhearingbeheld.(Peoplev.Stankewitz(1982)32Cal.3d80,92,citing +@'( Patev.Robinson,supra,383U.S.375.)UnderCalifornialaw, whenanorderfora  hearingintothepresentmentalcompetenceofthedefendanthasbeenissued,all  proceedingsinthecriminalprosecutionshallbesuspendeduntilthequestionofpresent  mentalcompetenceofthedefendanthasbeendetermined.(Pen.Code,1368,subd.  (c).)  Ѐ   Ifadoubtastothedefendantscompetencyarisesinthemindofthetrialjudge,thecourt    shallstatethatdoubtontherecordandinquireoftheattorneyforthedefendantwhether,   intheopinionoftheattorney,thedefendantismentallycompetent.(Pen.Code,1368,   subd.(a).)AccordingtoPenalCodesection1368,subdivision(b), [i]fcounselinforms    thecourtthatheorshebelievesthedefendantisormaybementallyincompetent,the ~  courtshallorderthatthequestionofthedefendantsmentalcompetenceistobe y  determinedinahearing....(Pen.Code,1368,subd.(b).) t  Eveniftrialcounseldoesnotexpressadoubtastothedefendantscompetency, the j  courtmayneverthelessorderahearing.(Pen.Code,1368,subd.(b).)Infact,the e courtmustsuspendcriminalproceedingswheneverthereissubstantialevidenceof ` incompetencebeforeit,regardlessofdefensecounselsopiniononthesubject.(Peoplev. [ Ary(2004)118Cal.App.4th1016.) V Oncepresentedwithsubstantialevidenceofthedefendantsincompetence,tocomport L withdueprocess,thetrialcourtmustholdsuchahearing.(Peoplev.Pennington(1967) G 66Cal.2d,508,518;Peoplev.Stankewitz,supra,32Cal.3datp.92.) B Perhapsthemostcommoncompetencyissueappellatepractitionersconfrontiswhether 8 therewasinfactsubstantialevidenceofincompetencesuchthatthetrialcourterredin 3 notsuspendingcriminalproceedings(andthereforeactedinexcessofjurisdictionin .~ conductingatrialthatledtoconvictionorinacceptingaguiltyornocontestplea). )y TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasopinedonafewofthefactorstrialcourtsshould !o considerwhendeterminingwhethertosuspendcriminalproceedingsandholda "j competencyhearing: TheimportofourdecisioninPatev.Robinsonisthatevidenceofa #e defendant'sirrationalbehavior,hisdemeanorattrial,andanypriormedicalopinionon $`  competencetostandtrialareallrelevantindeterminingwhetherfurtherinquiryis  %[ ! required,butthatevenoneofthesefactorsstandingalonemay,insomecircumstances,be &V!" sufficient.Thereare,ofcourse,nofixedorimmutablesignswhichinvariablyindicate 'Q"# theneedforfurtherinquirytodeterminefitnesstoproceed;thequestionisoftena 'L#$ difficultoneinwhichawiderangeofmanifestationsandsubtlenuancesareimplicated. (G$% (Dropev.Missouri,supra,420U.S.atp.180.) )B%& Moreover,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthasheld:Ifasinglequalifiedexpertinformsthe +8'( court,afteradequateconsultationwiththedefendant,thatthedefendantdoesnotmeetthe  requirementsfortrialcompetency,thenthesubstantialevidencetestissatisfied no  matterhowpersuasiveotherevidencetestimonyofprosecutionwitnessesorthecourts  ownobservationsoftheaccusedmaybetothecontrary.(Peoplev.Pennington,supra,  66Cal.2datpp.518519.)  Recentappellatecasesexaminingwhetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtosuspend   criminalproceedingsandorderacompetencyhearinginclude:Peoplev.Jenan(2007)   148Cal.App.4th1144[findingerror]andPeoplev.Rogers,supra,39Cal.4thatpp.846   850[findingnoerror].       TheQuestionofCompetencyCannotBeWaivedAfteraDoubtHasBeenDeclared  ڈ  y  AstheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasdeclared: onceadoubthasarisenastothe q  competenceofthedefendanttostandtrial,thetrialcourthasnojurisdictiontoproceed l  withthecaseagainstthedefendantwithoutfirstdetermininghiscompetenceina[Penal g Code]section1368hearing,andthemattercannotbewaivedbydefendantorhis b counsel.(Peoplev.Hale(1988)44Cal.3d531,541;seealsoPen.Code1368,sudd. ] (c),1370,subd.(a)(1)(B).) X InPeoplev.Marks(1988)45Cal.3d1335,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatatrial N courtsacquiescencetodefensecounselsrequesttowithdrawhisorherdoubtastothe I defendantscompetencydidnotamounttoavalidjudicialfindingofcompetence. D AccordingtoMarks, theconstitutionalrighttodueprocess,[PenalCode]section1369, ? andourholdinginHale,supra,[citations],require,ataminimum,thatthetrialcourt : expresslyandunmistakablystateontherecord,eitherorallyorinwriting,its 5 determinationastowhetherthedefendantismentallycompetenttostandtrialoncea 0 doubthasbeendeclared.(Peoplev.Marks,supra,45Cal.3datp.1343,italicsin +{ original.) & v    UponSuspensionofCriminalProceedings,TrialCourtsMayNotEntertainFaretta "l MotionsforSelfRepresentation  q  #i Inmostcircumstances,acriminaldefendanthasafederalconstitutionalrighttoproceed %a ! withoutcounsel.(Farettav.California(1975)422U.S.806[announcingtherightto  &\!" selfrepresentation];Godinezv.Moran(1993)509U.S.389[holdingthatastatemay 'W"# permitselfrepresentationsolongasthedefendantiscompetent];Indianav.Edwards (R#$ (2008)554U.S.___[128S.Ct.2379][holdingthatastatemaydenyselfrepresentation (M$% toadefendantdeemedcompetenttostandtrialonthegroundthatthedefendantlacksthe )H%& mentalcapacitytoconducthisorhertrialwithouttheassistanceofcounsel].) *C&'  +>'( However,onceadoubtisdeclaredastoacriminaldefendantscompetencyandcriminal  proceedingsaresuspended,trialcourtslackjurisdictiontoruleonadefendantsmotion  forselfrepresentationunlessanduntilthedefendantisdeemedcompetent.(Peoplev.  Horton(1995)11Cal.4th1068,1108,citingPeoplev.Marks,supra,45Cal.3datp.  1340.)  Ontheotherhand,shouldthedefendantbefoundcompetentafterappropriate   proceedingsandrenewhisorherrequestforselfrepresentation,thetrialcourtshould   addresstherequestinamatterconsistentwiththestandardannouncedinIndianav.   Edwards,wheretheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtconcluded: theConstitutionpermits    judgestotakerealisticaccountoftheparticulardefendantsmentalcapacitiesbyasking ~  whetheradefendantwhoseekstoconducthisowndefenseattrialismentallycompetent y  todoso.Thatistosay,theConstitutionpermitsStatestoinsistuponrepresentationby t  counselforthosecompetentenoughtostandtrialunderDuskybutwhostillsufferfrom o  severementalillnesstothepointwheretheyarenotcompetenttoconducttrial j  proceedingsbythemselves.(Indianav.Edwards,supra,554U.S.___[128S.Ct. e 2379].) `   `    TrialCourtsMustEntertainMarsdenMotionsEvenAftertheSuspensionof V CriminalProceedingstoHoldaCompetencyHearing    S UndertheSixthandFourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitution,atrial K courtmaynotdenyanindigentcriminaldefendantsmotiontosubstituteoneappointed F counselforanotherwithoutgivinghimanopportunitytostatethereasonsforhisrequest. A (Peoplev.Marsden(1970)2Cal.3d118.) <  CCInPeoplev.Solorzano(2005)126Cal.App.4th1063,theFifthDistrictCourtofAppeal 2 ruledthat#C C# CCevenaftercriminalproceedingshavebeensuspendedinordertoconducta -} competencyhearing,thefederalconstitutionimposesamandatorydutytoholdahearing ( x onacriminaldefendantsMarsdenmotionbeforeadjudicatingthedefendants #!s competency.#C CĜ#    h  "n    CourtsHaveaContinuingDutytoSuspendProceedingsIfaDoubtArisesastothe $d  DefendantsCompetencyEvenAfterTrialHasAlreadyStarted    %a !  Evenwhenadefendantiscompetentatthecommencementofhistrial,atrialcourtmust  'Y"# alwaysbealerttocircumstancessuggestingachangethatwouldrendertheaccused (T#$ unabletomeetthestandardsofcompetencetostandtrial.(Dropev.Missouri,supra, (O$% 420U.S.atp.181)Shouldsubstantialevidenceofmentalincompetencearisemidtrial, )J%&  thecorrectcourse[is]tosuspendthetrialandconducttheappropriatecompetency *E&' inquiry.(Ibid.) +@'( Ї   AppointmentofExperts ʡ   Onceadoubthasbeendeclaredandatrialonthequestionofthedefendantsmental  competenceordered,thecourtmustappointatleastonepsychiatristorlicensed  psychologisttoevaluatethedefendant.(Pen.Code,1369,subd.(a).)Asecondexpert  mustbeappointed [i]nanycasewherethedefendantorthedefendantscounselinforms   thecourtthatthedefendantisnotseekingafindingofmentalincompetence.(Ibid.,   emphasisadded;seealsoPeoplev.Harris(1993)14Cal.App.4th984[wherethe   appellatecourtheldasecondexpertshouldhavebeenappointed]andPeoplev.Robinson   (2007)151Cal.App.4th606[wheretheappellatecourtheldthatasecondexpertneednot    havebeenappointed].)   Inadditiontoevaluatingthedefendantstrialcompetency,theexpert(s)mustalsoaddress v  thequestionsofwhetherthedefendanthasthecapacitytomakedecisionsregarding q  antipsychoticmedication(ifsuchmedicationisappropriate)andwhetherthedefendant l  posesadangertoselforothers.(Pen.Code,1369,subd.(a).) g  Ifitissuspectedthedefendantisdevelopmentallydisabled,thecourtshallappointthe ] directoroftheregionalcenterforthedevelopmentallydisabledestablishedunder X Division4.5(commencingwithSection4500)oftheWelfareandInstitutionsCode,or S thedesigneeofthedirector,toexaminethedefendant.(Ibid.)Failuretoreferthe N defendantscasetothedirectoroftheregionalcenterisnotpersereversibleerror. I (Peoplev.Leonard(2007)40Cal.4th1370,1391,fn.3[overrulingPeoplev.Castro D (2000)78Cal.App.4th1402totheextenttheCourtofAppealfoundthistypeoferrorto ? bereversibleperse].) :    TrialbyJury   0 PenalCodesection1369affordscriminaldefendantsastatutoryrighttoajurytrialonthe ( x issueofmentalcompetence.(Pen.Code,1369.)Californiaappellatecourtshaveheld #!s thatthejurytrialrightdoesnotstemfromthestateorfederalconstitution.(Peoplev. "n Samuel(1981)29Cal.3d489;Peoplev.McPeters(1992)2Cal.4th1148;Peoplev. #i Harris,supra,14Cal.App.4thatp.991.) $d  Eitherthedefenseortheprosecutionmaydemandajurytrialonthequestionofthe  &Z!" defendantsmentalcompetence.(Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(McPeters)(1985)169 'U"# Cal.App.3d796.) (P#$ Defensecounselmaywaivetherighttoajurytrialonthecompetencyquestion,evenover )F%& theobjectionofthedefendant.(Peoplev.Masterson(1994)8Cal.4th965,972;seealso *A&' Peoplev.Samuel,supra,29Cal.3datp.495.) +<'( ЇThetrialcourt neednotadvisethedefendantof[thejurytrial]right.(Peoplev.  Masterson,supra,Cal.4thatp.972.)  Priortothecommencementofajurytrialonthequestionofthedefendantscompetence,  theparties areentitledonlytothenumberofperemptorychallengesprovidedforincivil  trials,eveniftheunderlyingoffenseispunishablebydeathorlifeimprisonment.   (Peoplev.Stanley(1995)10Cal.4th764,807.)   Ifeitherpartyexercisesthejuryright, thecourtshallchargethejury,instructingthemon   allmattersoflawnecessaryfortherenderingofaverdict.(Pen.Code,1369,subd.    (f).)ThemodeljuryinstructionforcompetencytrialsisfoundatCALCRIMno.3451. ~  Thejurymustrenderaunanimousverdict.(Pen.Code,1369,subd.(f).) t     PresumptionofCompetence 3  j  AccordingtoPenalCodesection1369,subdivision(f), [i]tshallbepresumedthatthe b defendantismentallycompetentunlessitisprovedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence ] thatthedefendantismentallyincompetent.(Pen.Code,1369,subd.(f);seealso X Peoplev.Rells(2000)22Cal.4th860[ TheFourteenthAmendmentsdueprocessclause S infactpermitsthepresumptionthatthedefendantismentallycompetentunlessheis N provedbyapreponderanceoftheevidencetobeotherwise].) I    CivilDiscoveryRulesApplyToCompetencyProceedings   ? Justasthenumberofperemptorychallengesaffordedbothpartiesisgovernedbycivil 7 law,therulesofcivildiscoveryhavealsobeenheldtoapplyincompetencytrials. 2 (Baqlehv.SuperiorCourt(2002)100Cal.App.4th478,490-491.) -}   CC  StatementsfromCourtOrderedCompetencyEvaluationsMayNotBeUsedatTrial ӷ  #!s Ingeneral,theFifthAmendmentprivilegeagainstself-incriminationappliesto #k competencyexaminations.(Estellev.Smith(1981)451U.S.454.) InCalifornia,the $f  protection...affordedbyapplicationoftheFifthAmendmentisinfactprovidedbya %a ! judiciallydeclaredruleofimmunityapplicabletoallpersonswhosecompetencytostand  &\!" trialisdeterminedata[PenalCode]section1368hearing.(Peoplev.Jablonski(2006) 'W"# 37Cal.4th774,802,quotingBaqlehv.SuperiorCourt(2002)100Cal.App.4th478,496.)#C Cݴ# CCԀ (R#$  [B]ecauseadefendantmaynotinvokehisrightagainstcompelledself-incriminationina (M$% competencyexamination,neitherthestatementsof[thedefendant]tothepsychiatrists )H%& appointedunder[PenalCode]section1369northefruitsofsuchstatementsmaybeused *C&' intrialoftheissueof[thedefendants]guilt,undereitherthepleaofnotguiltyorthatof +>'( notguiltybyreasonofinsanity.(Peoplev.Jablonski(2006)37Cal.4th774,802,  quoting#C C # CCԀTarantinov.SuperiorCourt(1975)48Cal.App.3d465,470.)Thesecasesmake  itclearthatthefruitsofacompetencyevaluationmaynotbeofferedagainstacriminal  defendantaspartoftheprosecutionscaseinchief.  InPeoplev.Pokovich(2006)39Cal.4th1240,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtaddressed   thefollowingquestion: Mayatestifyingdefendantbeimpeachedattrialwithstatements   madebeforetrialtomentalhealthprofessionalsduringacourt-orderedexaminationto   determinethedefendantsmentalcompetencytostandtrial?TheSupremeCourt   answeredthisquestioninthenegative,concludingthatsuchimpeachmentviolatesthe    federalConstitutionsFifthAmendmentprivilegeagainstself-incrimination.#C Cݧ# ~     AFindingofCompetencyisSubjecttoSubstantialEvidenceReviewonAppeal   t  Thetrieroffactsfindingthatadefendantwascompetenttostandtrialisreviewedfor l  substantialevidenceonappeal.(Peoplev.Samuel,supra,29Cal.3datp.505.) CCOn g appealfromafindingofcompetenceorincompetence,thereviewingcourtdetermines b whethersubstantialevidence,viewedinthelightmostfavorabletotheverdict,supports ] thetrialcourtsfinding.(Peoplev.Lawley(2002)27Cal.4th102,131.)#C C# X    ToObtainaSecondCompetencyHearing,ThereMustBeEvidenceofaSubstantial N ChangeofCircumstancesorNewEvidence   K  Whenacompetencyhearinghasalreadybeenheldandthedefendanthasbeenfound C competenttostandtrial...acourtneednotsuspendproceedingstoconductasecond > competencyhearingunlessitispresentedwithasubstantialchangeofcircumstancesor 9 withnewevidencecastingaseriousdoubtonthevalidityofthatfinding.(Peoplev. 4 Jones(1997)15Cal.4th119,150,internalquotationmarksomitted;seealsoPeoplev. / Kaplan(2007)149Cal.App.4th372[ CC uponthepresentationofsubstantialevidence * z showingasubstantialchangeofcircumstancesornewevidencegivingrisetoaserious %!u doubtaboutthevalidityoftheoriginalcompetencyfinding,regardlessofthepresenceof  "p conflictingevidence,thetrialcourtmustholdasubsequentcompetencyhearing#C Cݜ#].) #k    TheDefendantMustbeCompetentinordertoEnteraGuiltyorNoContestPlea fep  %a ! Becauseatrialcourt hasnojurisdictiontoproceedwiththecaseagainstthedefendant  'Y"# withoutfirstdetermininghiscompetenceinasection1368hearingonceadoubthas (T#$ arisen(Peoplev.Hale,supra,44Cal.3datp.541),thecourtmaynotacceptapleaofany (O$% kind.Asoneappellatecourthasnoted: Ifbyreasonofmentaldisturbanceheis... )J%& incompetenttostandtrial,thedefendantisincapableofenteringaknowledgeableplea. *E&' (Peoplev.Hofferber,supra,70Cal.App.3datp.269.) +@'( Ї Aclaimthatthetrialcourtacceptedaguiltypleafromadefendantorenteredjudgment  againsthimwithouthavingconductedahearingonhispresentsanitydespitesubstantial  evidenceraisingadoubtofhissanityisanallegationoffundamentalerror.Theerroris  jurisdictionalinthesensethatthetrialcourthasnopowertopronouncejudgmentinsuch  acase.([Citation.])Theerrorgoestothelegalityoftheproceedingsbecauseconviction  ofanaccusedpersonwhileheislegallyincompetentviolatesdueprocess.([Citation.])   (Peoplev.Laudermilk(1967)67Cal.2d272,282.)   Ѐ   InGodinezv.Moran,supra,509U.S.389,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatthe   competencystandardforpleadingguiltyisthesameasthetestofcompetencytostand    trial.Therefore,ifadoubthasarisenregardingthedefendantstrialcompetency,thenthe ~  courtmaynotacceptaguiltyornocontestpleafromthatpersonuntilthequestionof y  mentalcompetencehasbeenresolvedinfavorofcompetence. t     WhetheraCertificateofProbableCauseisRequiredToChallengeaCompetency j  DeterminationonDirectAppealFollowingaGuiltyorNoContestPleaDependson g theTimingoftheAllegedIncompetency fe  d Acertificateofprobablecauseisnotrequiredtochallengethefailuretosuspend \ proceedingsforadeterminationastowhetherthedefendantwascompetenttobe W sentencedwhenthedoubtaroseaftertheentryofaguiltyornocontestplea.(Peoplev. R Oglesby(2008)158Cal.App.4th818.)Presumably,pursuanttotheOglesbyanalysis,a M certificateofprobablecauseissimilarlynotrequiredwhenchallengingapostplea H findingofcompetencymadeafterproceedingsweresuspended,solongastheappellate C challengeisdirectedatthedefendantscompetencytobesentencedandnotattheplea > itself. 9 Ontheotherhand,thedefendantmustobtainacertificateofprobablecauseinorderto / raiseprepleacompetencyissuesdirectedatundoingthepleaitself.(Peoplev.Mendez * z (1999)19Cal.4th1084,1100.)Note:theCaliforniaSupremeCourtconsideredan %!u appellateattackonthepleaitselfoncompetencygroundswithoutacertificateofprobable  "p causeinLaudermilk,butthenoticeofappealwasfiledinthatcasebeforetherule #k requiringcertificatesofprobablecausetookeffect.(Peoplev.Laudermilk,supra,67 $f  Cal.2datp.282,fn.8.) %a !    CaliforniasStatutoryCompetencyFrameworkAppliestoProbationRevocation 'W"# Proceedings fe  (T#$ Althoughprobationrevocationproceedingsarenotgenerallyconsideredcriminal )L%& prosecutions(seee.g.Morrisseyv.Brewer(1972)408U.S.471,480),where criminal *G&' proceedingshadinitiallybeensuspendedwithoutimpositionofsentence,thetrialcourt +B'( lackedpowertoimposesentenceupontherevocationofprobationunlessappellantwas  thenpresentlysane.(Peoplev.Humphrey(1975)45Cal.App.3d32,36.)Thus,the  competencyframeworksetforthatPenalCodesection1367etseq.appliesduring  probationrevocationproceedingsaswell.     MinorsMayNotBeAdjudgedDelinquentWardsIfMentallyIncompetent th>    Whilenoparallelstatutoryprovisiondefinesormandatescompetencyinthecontextofa   juveniledelinquencyproceeding,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasheldthatminors   haveadueprocessrighttotheassistanceofcounselwhenajurisdictionalhearingmight    resultininvoluntaryconfinement.(InreGault(1967)387U.S.1,41;seealsoJamesH.   v.SuperiorCourt(1978)77Cal.App.3d169,173174.)Inaddition,theGaultCourtheld {  that confrontationandsworntestimonybywitnessesavailableforcross-examination v  wereessentialforafindingofdelinquencyandanordercommitting[aminor]toastate q  institution....(InreGault,supra,387U.S.atp.56.)Moreover,theCalifornia l  SupremeCourthasheldthatdefectivecrossexaminationresultingfrommental g impairmentsupportsafindingofincompetency.(Peoplev.Pennington(1967)66Cal.2d b 508,516.)Therefore,inordertoprotecttherighttoassistanceofcounselandtherightto ] confrontwitnesses, ajuvenilecourthastheinherentpowertodetermineaminors X mentalcompetencetounderstandthenatureofthependingproceedingsandtoassist S counselinarationalmanneratthathearing.(InrePatrickH.(1997)54Cal.App.4th N 1346,1355,citingJamesH.v.SuperiorCourt,supra,77Cal.App.3datp.172.) I PatrickH.andJamesH.resortedtothenotionofinherentpowerduetotheabsenceofa ? statuteorstatewideJudicialCouncilruleonthesubject.(InrePatrickH.,supra,54 : Cal.App.4thatp.1355.)InJamesH.,theCourtofAppealsuggestedthatjuvenilecourts 5 shouldturntoeitherPenalCodesection1367orDuskyforguidanceontheappropriate 0 competencestandardatdelinquencyproceedings.(JamesH.v.SuperiorCourt,supra,77 +{ Cal.App.3datp.176.) & v But,in1999,CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule1498,wasadoptedinordertocurethe "l absenceofastatuteorstatewiderulegoverningcompetencyinjuvenilewardship #g proceedings,asrecognizedbyPatrickH.andJamesH.(AdvisoryCom.com,Wests $b  CaliforniaRulesofCourt(2006rev.ed.)foll.rule1498,p.437.)Rule1498hassince  %] ! beenrenumberedasrule5.645.Subdivision(d)oftherenumberedrulestates: &X!" ` Ifthecourtfindsthatthereisreasontodoubtthatachildwhoisthe 'N#$ subjectofapetitionfiledunder[WelfareandInstitutionsCode] (I$% section601or602iscapableofunderstandingtheproceedingsorof )D%& cooperatingwiththechildsattorney,thecourtshallstaythe *?&' proceedingsandconductahearingregardingthechildscompetence. +:'( Ї4(1)Thecourtmayappointanexperttoexaminethechildto  evaluatethechildscapacitytounderstandtheproceedingsandto  cooperatewiththeattorney;  (2)Ifthecourtfindsthatthechildisnotcapableofunderstanding  theproceedingsorofcooperatingwiththeattorney,thecourt   shallproceedunder[WelfareandInstitutionsCode]section6550   andsections(a)-(c)ofthisrule.   (3)Ifthecourtfindsthatthechildiscapableofunderstandingthe    proceedingsandofcooperatingwiththeattorney,thecourtshall ~  proceedwiththecase. y  4` (Cal.RulesofCourt,rule5.645(d).) o    Underthisframework,thejuvenilecourtmustsuspendproceedingsifthereisreasonto e doubttheminorscompetencyandthenconductahearingonthatissue.(Ibid.)The ` competencystandardarticulatedinrule5.645,whichturnsontheminorscapacityto [ understandtheproceedingsandcooperatewithcounsel,bearsgreatsimilaritytothe V standardannouncedinDuskyandcodifiedinPenalCodesection1367.(SeeDuskyv. Q UnitedStates,supra,362U.S.atp.402;seealsoPen.Code,1367.)Afterconductinga L hearingpursuanttorule5.645,ifthecourtconcludesthattheminoriscompetent,the G wardshipproceedingsresume.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule5.645(d)(3).)If,ontheother B hand,thecourtdeterminesthattheminorisnotcompetent,thenthecourt shallinitiate = judicialcommitmentproceedingsinlieuofwardshipproceedings.(Cal.RulesofCourt, 8 rule5.645(d)(2).) 3 Althoughthecompetencystandardsetforthinrule5.645largelymirrorsthestandard )y announcedinPenalCodesection1367,oneCourtofAppealhasacknowledgedan $ t importantdistinctionbetweenthecompetencystandardapplicableinjuvenile !o delinquencyproceedingsandtheoneapplicableincriminalproceedings.UnlikePenal "j Codesection1367,whichdefinescompetencybyreferencetoa mentaldisorderor #e developmentaldisability(Pen.Code,1367),rule5.645doesnotcontainasimilar $`  reference(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule5.645.)TheThirdDistrictCourtofAppealrecently  %[ ! heldthatinlightofthisdistinctionjuvenilecourtspresidingoverdelinquency &V!" proceedingsneednotfindamentaldisorderordevelopmentaldisabilitytodeemaminor 'Q"# incompetenttofacedelinquencyproceedings.(TimothyJ.v.SuperiorCourt(2007)150 'L#$ Cal.App.4th847,857.)Minors,theCourtofAppealconcluded,couldbefound (G$% incompetentbasedonaconditionthatresultssimplyfromdevelopmentalimmaturity. )B%& (Id.atp.859860.) *=&'  +8'( TheThirdDistrictCourtofAppealhasalsoconcludedthatthecompetencyrightfoundin  thefederalconstitutionandrule5.645attachesathearingstodetermineaminorsfitness  forjuvenilecourtheldpursuanttoWelfareandInstitutionsCodesection707,subdivision  (b).(TyroneB.v.SuperiorCourt(2008)164Cal.App.4th227.)Thejuvenilecourt  furthererredinTyroneB.byfailingtoappointanexperttoevaluatetheminors  competencyinaccordancewithrule5.645(d).(Ibid.)   TheThirdDistrictCourtofAppealhasalsomadeitclearthat thequestionisnotcanthe   minorbecomecompetentinthefuturewithassistance;ratherthequestioniswhetherheis   presentlycompetent....(InreRickyS.(2008)166Cal.App.4th232.)       CC   CriminalDefendantsFoundIncompetenttoStandTrialareCommittedtotheState y  Hospital ed  v  #C C#Ifacriminaldefendantisfoundincompetenttostandtrial,criminalproceedingsmust n  remainsuspended,andthetrialcourtmustcommittheindividualtoastatehospitaluntil i heorsheregainscompetency.(Pen.Code,1370,subd.(a)(1)(B)(I).)However,a d criminaldefendantmaynotbecommittedtoastatehospitalforthesolepurposeof _ restoringcompetencyformorethanthreeyearsorforaperiodgreaterthanthemaximum Z termofconfinementfortheunderlyingoffense(s),whicheverisless.(Pen.Code,1370, U subd.(c)(1)(A).)Attheendoftheapplicablemaximumtermofcommitment,ifthe P defendanthasnotbeenrestoredtocompetency,heorshemustbereturnedtotheoriginal K committingcourt.(Pen.Code,1370,subd.(c)(1)(A).) F Ifeitherthemaximumcommitmenttermhasexpired,orthemedicaldirectorofthestate < hospitaldetermines thereisnosubstantiallikelihoodthatthedefendantwillregain 7 mentalcompetenceintheforeseeablefuture,thetrialcourtmusteitherreleasethe 2 defendantorinitiateappropriatealternativecommitmentproceedingsundertheLPSAct. -} (Pen.Code,1370,subd.(b)(1);seealsoInreDavis(1973)8Cal.3d798,807.) ( x  Wheneveranydefendantisreturnedtothecourtbecausethemedicaldirectorofthe "n statehospitalhasdeterminedthereisnosubstantiallikelihoodthatthedefendantwill #i regainmentalcompetenceintheforeseeablefuture anditappearstothecourtthatthe $d  defendantisgravelydisabled,asdefinedin[theLPSAct],thecourtshallorderthe %_ ! conservatorshipinvestigatorofthecountyofcommitmentofthedefendanttoinitiate  &Z!" conservatorshipproceedingsforthedefendant  pursuantto[theLPSAct].(Pen.Code, 'U"# 1370,subd.(c)(2);seealso CCPeoplev.Karriker(2007)149Cal.App.4th763#C CV#.) CC (R#$  +>'(    CriminalProceedingsAreReinstatedWhenTheDefendantsCompetencyHasBeen  Restored ed   Rellsprovidesagoodoverviewoftheprocedurestodeterminewhetheranincompetent  criminaldefendanthasbeenrestoredtocompetency.(Peoplev.Rells,supra,22Cal.4th  atpp.866867.)Ifthedefendantremainsunderanincompetencycommitmentfor18   months,thepersonmustbebroughtbacktothetrialcourtforanewcompetencyhearing   heldinaccordancewithPenalCodesection1369.(Pen.Code,1370,subd.(b)(2).)   Despitethepreviousfindingofincompetence,thepresumptionofcompetencecontinues   tooperate.(Peoplev.Rells,supra,22Cal.4thatp.866.)    Ifatanytimeduringthedefendantsincompetencycommitment themedicaldirectorof }  thestatehospital...determinesthatthedefendanthasregainedmentalcompetence,the x  directorshallimmediatelycertifythatfacttothecourtbyfilingacertificateofrestoration s  withthecourtbycertifiedmail....(Pen.Code,1372,subd.(a).)PenalCodesection n  1372doesnotspecifywhattypeofhearingisbehelduponreceiptofsuchacertificate, i buttheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasdeterminedthatthepresumptionofcompetence d appliesatsuchaproceedingaswell.(Peoplev.Rells,supra,22Cal.4thatpp.867868.) _ If,undereithercircumstance,thedefendantscompetenceisdeemedrestored,criminal U proceedingsarethenreinstated. P    NoConductCreditsTowardStatePrisonSentenceForTimeSpentCivilly F CommittedasIncompetent ed   C Whenacriminaldefendantscompetencehasbeenrestoredandheorsheissentencedto ; stateprison,thedefendantisentitledtoactualcustodycredits#C C# CCԀbutnotconductcredits. 6 (Peoplev.Waterman(1986)42Cal.3d565;seealso#C C# CCPeoplev.Callahan(2006)144 1 Cal.App.4th678.)Appellatecourtshavereasonedthatcreditsforgoodbehaviorare , | inconsistentwiththetherapeuticgoalsoftreatingadefendantsothathiscompetencycan '!w berestored,agoalthatwouldbehinderedif mereinstitutionalgoodbehaviorand ""r participationautomaticallyreducedthetherapyperiod.(Peoplev.Callahan,supra,144 #m Cal.App.4th678,citingPeoplev.Waterman,supra,42Cal.3d565#C Cݪ# CC.)#C C,# CC $h  #C Cq#   AnOrderCommittingaDefendanttotheStateHospitalasIncompetenttoStand &^!" TrialisanAppealableOrder ed   '["# Anorderadjudicatingacriminaldefendantincompetenttostandtrialandcommittinghim )S$% tothestatehospitalisappealableasafinaljudgmentinaspecialproceeding.(Peoplev. )N%& Fields,supra,62Cal.2datp.542.)Itis,however,prematureforthedefendanttoappeal *I&' theincompetencyfindingpriortotheissuanceofanensuingcommitmentorder. +D'( Ї   AFindingofCompetencyisNotAppealableButMayBeReviewedUponJudgment  ofConviction edM    CCAcriminaldefendantmaynotappealthetrieroffactsdeterminationthatthepersonis  competenttostandtrial.(Peoplev.Fields,supra,62Cal.2datpp.541542.) Insuch  circumstancesthecourtwillproceedwiththetrialofthecriminalcharge(PenCode,   1370),andthedeterminationoftheissueofsanitymaybereviewedonappealfroma   judgmentofconvictionasinthecaseofanyotherintermediateorder.(Ibid.)      ForcedMedication edO     InSellv.UnitedStates(2003)539U.S.166,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthat   federaldueprocessprinciplesrequirethefollowingfourfindingspriortoauthorizingthe z  involuntaryadministrationofantipsychoticmedicationforsolepurposeofrenderinga u  criminaldefendantcompetenttostandtrial:(1)importantgovernmentalinterestsareat p  stake;(2)administrationofthedrugsissubstantiallylikelytorenderthedefendant k competenttostandtrialandsubstantiallyunlikelytohavesideeffectsthatwillinterfere f significantlywiththedefendantsabilitytoassistcounselinconductingatrialdefense; a (3)anyalternative,lessintrusivetreatmentsareunlikelytoachievesubstantiallythesame \ results;and(4)administrationofthedrugsismedicallyappropriate,i.e.,inthepatients W bestmedicalinterestinlightofhismedicalcondition. R _Sell_Ԁalsocautionedagainstorderingtheinvoluntaryadministrationofantipsychotic F medicationstorenderadefendantcompetenttostandtrialwithoutfirstconsidering A alternativegrounds,suchasdangerousnessoranincapacityonthepartofthedefendant < tomakecompetentdecisionsregardingmedicaltreatment. 7 InresponsetoSell,theCaliforniaLegislatureamendedPenalCodesection1370topermit -} theinvoluntaryadministrationofantipsychoticmedicationontrialcompetencygrounds ( x onlyif: Thepeoplehavechargedthedefendantwithaseriouscrimeagainsttheperson #!s orproperty;involuntaryadministrationofantipsychoticmedicationissubstantiallylikely "n torenderthedefendantcompetenttostandtrial;themedicationisunlikelytohaveside #i effectsthatinterferewiththedefendant'sabilitytounderstandthenatureofthecriminal $d  proceedingsortoassistcounselintheconductofadefenseinareasonablemanner;less %_ ! intrusivetreatmentsareunlikelytohavesubstantiallythesameresults;andantipsychotic  &Z!" medicationisinthepatientsbestmedicalinterestinlightofhisorhermedical 'U"# condition.(Pen.Code,1370,subd.(a)(2)(B)(ii)(III).) (P#$ Inaddition,theLegislaturecodifiedSellspreferenceforbasingforcedmedicationorders )F%& ongroundsotherthanrenderinganindividualcompetenttostandtrial,suchas *A&' dangerousnessorincapacitytomakedecisionsregardingantipsychoticmedications. +<'( (Pen.Code,1370,subd.(a)(2)(B)(iii).)  Forcedmedicationordersinthecompetencycontexthavebeenreviewedinthefollowing  cases:Peoplev.ODell(2005)126Cal.App.4th562;Carterv.SuperiorCourt(2006)141  Cal.App.4th992;andPeoplev.McDuffie(2006)144Cal.App.4th880.#C C#   CCAnorderauthorizingtheinvoluntaryadministrationofantipsychoticmedicationpursuant   toPenalCodesectionisappealablebyvirtueofPenalCodesection1370,subdivision   (a)(2)(B)(v),andCodeofCivilProcedure#C C$# CCԀsection904.1.#C C&#n