People v. Brackett

• Decision Date: 15 February 2023
• Docket Number: C096309
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEMOND CHARLES BRACKETT, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DEMOND CHARLES BRACKETT, Defendant and Appellant.

C096309

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Yuba

February 15, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Super. Ct. Nos. CRF2200263, CRF2200544, CRF2200560)

HULL, Acting P. J.

Defendant Demond Charles Brackett appeals from an order committing him to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) following a finding that he was incompetent to stand trial in three criminal matters. His appointed counsel has filed a brief asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) While we are not required to independently review the record in these circumstances (People v. Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020, 1024-1025 (Blanchard)), our discretionary review of the record reveals no meritorious issues. We therefore affirm the trial court's order.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

In February 2022, defendant was charged with assault upon a custodial officer (CRF22-263). The following month, he was charged in two separate cases with battery against a custodial officer (CRF22-544) and threatening a public officer (CRF22-560). In the latter two cases, defendant was alleged to have a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law.

On March 21, 2022, a day before the third of these cases was filed, defendant's trial counsel declared a doubt regarding defendant's competence to stand trial in the first two matters. The question of defendant's mental competence was submitted on psychiatric evaluations that were conducted in connection with two prior cases that are not at issue in this appeal. Defendant's attorney informed the trial court that defendant had already been committed to DSH in those matters and was awaiting transport. Based on these prior evaluations, the trial court found defendant incompetent to stand trial in the new matters and suspended criminal proceedings.

On April 7, 2022, the same doubt was declared with respect to defendant's competence to stand trial in the third case at issue in this appeal. Criminal proceedings were suspended in this matter as well. However, rather than find defendant to be incompetent based on the prior evaluations, the trial court "reappoint[ed] Dr. Daisy Switzer to give an updated opinion of [d]efendant's competency" for purposes of all three cases and ordered a hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1369. Statutory section citations that follow are...