People v. Aguirre

• Decision Date: 24 May 2021
• Docket Number: C088852
• Citation: 279 Cal.Rptr.3d 126,64 Cal. App. 5th 652
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff, v. Luis Carlos AGUIRRE, Defendant and Respondent; State Department of State Hospitals, Objector and Appellant. [And 50 other cases.]

64 Cal.App.5th 652

279 Cal.Rptr.3d 126

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff,

v.Luis Carlos AGUIRRE, Defendant and Respondent;

State Department of State Hospitals, Objector and Appellant.

[And 50 other cases.

]

C088852

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed May 24, 2021

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Gregory D. Brown, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Darrell W. Spence and Kevin L. Quade, Deputy Attorneys General, for Objector and Appellant.

Diane Nichols, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendants and Respondents.

Duarte, J.

The State Department of State Hospitals (Department) oversees state hospitals that provide treatment to individuals facing criminal charges who are found incompetent to stand trial (IST).In separate criminal cases, the trial court found 37 defendants IST and ordered the Department to admit them within 60 days of the receipt of an informational packet.The Department failed to timely admit 31 of the 37 defendants.These defendants separately sought sanctions against the Department pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5, claiming violation of the court's order.¹The trial court found the Department in violation of the order, and imposed monetary sanctions pursuant to section 177.5, which provides in relevant part: "A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions ... for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification....For the purposes of this section, the term ‘person’ includes a witness, a party, a party's attorney, or both."

The Department appeals.It contends the trial court was not authorized to impose sanctions against it under section 177.5.Additionally, it claims good cause or substantial justification for violating the order even assuming the court could impose sanctions under section 177.5.We disagree with the Department's arguments and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Statutory Background

A court may not try or sentence a defendant in a criminal proceeding while the defendant is incompetent.( Pen. Code, § 1367, subd. (a).)If there is a doubt as to the defendant's competency to stand trial, criminal proceedings are suspended, and the defendant's mental competence is determined in a hearing.(Id. , § 1368, subds. (a)-(c).)The Department has no role in competency proceedings and does not receive prior notice of them.( Id. , §§ 1367 - 1370.)

If the defendant is found IST, the court shall commit the defendant to the Department.( Pen. Code, § 1370, subd. (a)(5).)Prior to the defendant's admission, the court must provide the Department with a "1370 packet," which includes copies of the commitment order, criminal history information, arrest reports, psychiatric examination reports, and medical records.( Id. , § 1370, subd. (a)(3).)The Department uses the information in the packet to determine the appropriate placement for the defendant.( Id. , § 1370, subd. (a)(2)(A).)The Department generally admits each individual according to the date the court committed the defendant to the Department.(Regs., tit. 9, § 4710, subd. (a).)

There is no statutory requirement setting a deadline for admission of an IST defendant to the Department after issuance of a commitment order.However, the Department is required to report the defendant's progress toward recovery to the court within 90 days of commitment.( Pen. Code, § 1370, subd. (b)(1).)Until the court declares the defendant restored to competency, the underlying criminal proceeding is suspended.( Id. , § 1370, subd. (a)(1).)

Increase in IST Defendant Referrals

Referral rates of IST defendants to the Department have substantially increased since 2013, and the Department's admissions have increased since 2010.Each state hospital overseen by the Department has reached its capacity, resulting in a waitlist for admission to a state hospital.As of August 13, 2018, the waitlist for admission to a state hospital, a jail-based competency treatment program, or the admission, evaluation, and stabilization center included 754 patients.

Between February 2014 and August 2018, the Department increased its total IST defendant capacity by 677 beds, and the Department has taken steps to improve the efficiency of the systems for placing and admitting IST defendants to maximize the utilization of available treatment beds.The 2018-2019 Governor's Budget also included additional funding for pretrial diversion programs aimed toward decreasing IST defendant referrals to the Department.

Procedural Background

Between September 2016 and May 2018, 37 defendants facing charges in unrelated criminal cases were found IST by the Superior Court of San Joaquin County under Penal Code section 1370.Each defendant was referred to the Community Program Director, San Joaquin County Mental Health, for a placement report and recommendations.The trial court ordered each defendant committed to the Department within approximately 60 days of receipt of the commitment packet from the court and the San Joaquin County Sheriff, and it ordered the sheriff to deliver each defendant to the Department.²The court also ordered the Department to provide its 90-day report on specific dates, typically approximately 90 days from the date of the order.The court's order did not mention or account for the waitlist for admission to state hospitals.The Department was not a party to the competency proceedings, and the record does not reflect that the Department was aware of the proceedings before receiving the subject commitment orders.

From January to June 2018, each defendant filed a request for section 177.5 sanctions against the Department.The requests alleged the Department failed to comply with the trial court's order to admit each defendant on a timely basis and requested that the court issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.The court issued the order to show cause.

The Department filed a motion to dismiss the orders to show cause; it argued the court had no authority to issue sanctions against the Department under section 177.5 because the statute only permits sanctions against a witness, a party, or a party's attorney, and the Department did not fall within any of those categories.

At the first hearing on the sanctions, the trial court heard argument as to all defendants and determined the Department could be sanctioned under section 177.5.The court found that the Department's statutory obligation to provide information to the court following commitment made the Department a witness to the proceedings.The court also found the Department "borders on becoming a party" following the commitment proceedings due to the Department's statutory obligations.Even if the Department were neither a witness nor a party, the court found the Department was "intended to be included in [ section] 177.5."

The trial court found the Department had violated its orders except as to four defendants who had been timely admitted, and set a second hearing.At the second hearing, the court imposed sanctions against the Department in the amount of $500 for each defendant admitted from 61 to 75 days after the date of providing the Penal Code section 1370 packet, $1,000 for each defendant admitted between 76 and 90 days after providing the packet, and $1,500 for each defendant admitted more than 90 days after providing the packet.

The trial court subsequently issued an omnibus order imposing sanctions.The total amount of sanctions was $34,000 in 31 of the 37 matters.The court reiterated its conclusion that the Department could be sanctioned under section 177.5 because the Department is "at least a real party in interest" and a witness within the meaning of section 177.5.

The trial court rejected the Department's claims that lack of funding and bed space constituted good cause or substantial justification for its failure to comply with the court's orders.The court recognized the Department is an agency of the State of California, and any lack of funding is a conscious budgetary decision made by the State.The court also rejected the Department's argument its efforts to solve the problem of the delay in admission constitutes good cause or substantial justification for violating the court's order.The court noted the Department's ongoing efforts do not help the individuals whose due process rights the Department already violated, and despite the Department's ongoing efforts, admission delays are only slightly improved.Indeed, the court noted: "The Department touts improvements but the fact remains that as of the date of this order most defendants are waiting well beyond the 60 day order (from the providing of the packet); and do not have a meaningful report within the time period mandated by Penal Code [s]ection 1370.The Department continues to violate nearly every 60-day admit-by order set by the Court, and Penal Code [s]ection 1370, by a considerable margin."

The Department timely appeals from the court's order.

DISCUSSION

ISanctions Against the Department

The Department asserts the trial court was not authorized to impose sanctions against it under section 177.5, because it was not a "person" within the meaning of the statute and, alternatively, that there was good cause for its failure to obey the order.

The Department emphasizes that the statute defines the "person" who may be sanctioned as "includ[ing] a witness, a party, a party's attorney, or both" and contends the plain language and legislative history of section 177.5 demonstrate the statute was therefore intended to authorize sanctions only against witnesses, parties, and parties’ attorneys.The Department contends it played none of these roles in this case.

The Department raised almost identical arguments in two recent cases, which were rejected by the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, in People v. Hooper(2019)40 Cal.App.5th 685, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d...