People v. Gonzales
Decision Date | 02 May 2019 |
Docket Number | 2d Crim. No. B289385 |
Citation | 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 843,34 Cal.App.5th 1081 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ruben Matthew GONZALES, Defendant and Appellant. |
Mark D. Lenenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A person charged with crime may not stand trial if he is mentally incompetent. Once defense counsel declares a doubt as to competence, it may not be withdrawn. The issue can only be resolved upon a trial court finding of competence vel non.
Ruben Matthew Gonzales appeals his conviction by jury of first degree murder with personal use of a deadly weapon. (Count 1; Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, 12022, subd. (b)(1).)1 He was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 33 years and eight months to life.
He contends that his due process rights were violated because the trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing after defense counsel declared a doubt as to appellant's competency and the proceedings were suspended pursuant to section 1368. We conditionally reverse the judgment of conviction and remand with directions to determine whether a retrospective competency hearing is feasible and, if so, to conduct a competency hearing. ( People v. Ary (2011) 51 Cal.4th 510, 515, fn. 1, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 431, 246 P.3d 322 ( Ary ); People v. Robinson (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 606, 619, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 102 ( Robinson ).)
On the morning of July 8, 2014, the victim, Emeterio Gonzalez (Tio) hosted a World Cup soccer game party at his apartment with Tracy Siquiedo (Tracy), Phillip Williams (Phillip), and Tio's nephew, Mario Gonzalez (Mario). Tio was 61 years old and disabled. He lived in an apartment complex for the elderly and disabled.
During the soccer game, Tracy and Phillip left to buy beer. When they returned, they saw appellant in Tio's apartment. Tio had met appellant a couple of weeks earlier. Tio said that he was a nice guy and "cool."
Appellant became angry and confrontational when Phillip touched appellant's backpack while cleaning. Phillip felt uncomfortable and left the apartment at 9:00 a.m. A few minutes later, appellant told Tracy that they had to go buy Tio some food. As Tracy prepared to leave, appellant showed her a large knife under his shirt. Appellant went over to Tio who was lying on a bed and appeared to hug him. Instead he fatally stabbed Tio in the neck.
Tracy ran outside and called 911. In a recorded call, Tracy said she just saw a man she barely knew stab Tio with a knife. Tracy said the man was Hispanic, 28 to 29 years old, clean-shaven, and wearing a white T-shirt and long blue shorts.
After the police arrived, Tracy was shown a surveillance video and identified appellant leaving the apartment at 9:16 a.m. Appellant had changed clothing and then wore brown khaki pants, a dark sweatshirt, and sunglasses. Appellant used the stairs to avoid the other surveillance cameras.
Mario told the police that appellant was angry and aggressive. He saw appellant go into the bathroom. Then he saw appellant come out of the bathroom, quickly "scuffle" with Tio on the bed, and leave the apartment, trying to conceal a six to eight-inch knife under his clothing. Mario chased after appellant but returned when Tio screamed, "Nephew, help me!" Tio was holding his neck. There was blood on his collar. Mario, like Tracy, identified appellant in a six-pack photo line-up.
The murder weapon was never found but appellant's white T-shirt and blue shorts were found inside a purple bucket in Tio's apartment. Appellant's blood and DNA were on the clothes. Tio's blood was on the side of the bucket.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in not conducting a competency hearing after it suspended proceedings pursuant to section 1368. The day of the preliminary hearing, appellant's trial attorney declared a doubt as to appellant's competency pursuant to section 1368. The trial court suspended the criminal proceedings, appointed a doctor to examine appellant and prepare a section 1368 report, and set the matter for a competency hearing. The competency hearing was continued 14 times from October 16, 2014 to November 9, 2015. The prosecution offered to stipulate to the contents of Doctor Ronald Thurston's report and waived jury trial. Defense counsel, however, refused to agree and the competency hearing was continued to November 17, 2015 for jury trial.
On the day set for jury trial as to competency, appellant's trial attorney stated:
The trial court asked: "You are just withdrawing that? I don't need to make a finding?
Defense counsel responded "That's correct." (Italics added.)2
After the prosecutor agreed to the procedure, the trial court ordered that "[c]riminal proceedings are now reinstated." The case proceeded to preliminary hearing and then jury trial.
Appellant correctly contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed to trial without first finding that appellant was competent to stand trial. (See People v. Pennington (1967) 66 Cal.2d 508, 521, 58 Cal.Rptr. 374, 426 P.2d 942.) This is so because the trial court's ( People v. Superior Court (Marks ) (1991) 1 Cal.4th 56, 70, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 389, 820 P.2d 613.)
Section 1368 provides in pertinent part: (Italics added.)
Relying on People v. Johnson (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 252 ( Johnson ), the respondent argues that the trial court never expressed a doubt as to appellant's competency. In Johnson , the trial court granted defense counsel's section 1368 request, suspended proceedings, and appointed two doctors to examine defendant. ( Id . at p. 1160, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 252.) After the doctors reported that defendant was competent to stand trial, the trial court granted counsel's motion to withdraw the section 1368 request. Defendant entered a change of plea and was sentenced to state prison. ( Id . at pp. 1160-1161, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 252.) On appeal, the Johnson court rejected the argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence defendant. ( Id . at p. 1166, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 252.)
Here, the trial court did not expressly declare a doubt about appellant's competency. But it impliedly did so by suspending the criminal proceedings.
When it set the matter for a section 1368 competency hearing, the prosecutor asked about a time waiver for the preliminary hearing. The trial court responded that no time waiver was required because "we suspended the proceedings when a doubt was declared."
The initial order setting a competency hearing was followed by 14 continuances of the hearing. This is tantamount to a finding that the trial court declared a doubt as to appellant's competency. Johnson is distinguishable because, in that case, defense counsel never represented to the court that defendant may be incompetent and the trial court "consistently declined to set a formal hearing on competency until further evidence was presented...." ( Johnson , supra , 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 1166, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 252.)
In People v. Marks (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1335, 248 Cal.Rptr. 874, 756 P.2d 260 ( Marks ) our Supreme Court held that a competency hearing must be conducted when the trial court relies on defense counsel's representation that there is a doubt as to defendant's competency. ( Id . at p. 1344, 248 Cal.Rptr. 874, 756 P.2d 260.) Respondent argues that the trial court merely acceded to defense counsel's request to suspend the proceedings. But that would elevate form over substance where the trial court orders a competency hearing, continues the competency hearing more than ten times, and sets the competency hearing for jury trial. Respondent's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Orellana, B292481
...or when such a report is itself admitted into evidence." (Leon, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 603, italics omitted; see also People v. Gonzalez (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1090.) People v. Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th 665, considered gang expert testimony, not autopsy reports. But its analysis is r......
-
People v. Williams
...reliable evidence of the defendant's mental condition at the time of trial would be available at the hearing.'" (People v. Gonzales (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1088 (Gonzales).) " 'Four factors are considered in assessing whether a meaningful retrospective competency determination can be ma......
-
Table of Cases null
...185 Cal. Rptr. 155 (2d Dist. 1982)—Ch. 4-C, §9.2.1 People v. Gomez, 209 Cal. 296, 286 P. 998 (1930)—Ch. 1, §4.5.1 People v. Gonzales, 34 Cal. App. 5th 1081, 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 843 (2d Dist. 2019)—Ch. 2, §11.2.2(1)(b)[2][b]; Ch. 5-E, §3.2.1(3)(c)[4] People v. Gonzales, 16 Cal. App. 5th 494, 2......
-
Chapter 5 - §3. Right of confrontation & out-of-court statements
...of objective facts, thus lacking the requisite degree of formality necessary to be testimonial. Id.; People v. Gonzales (2d Dist.2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1089; see Perez, 4 Cal.5th at 456; People v. Hall (1st Dist.2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 576, 601. The court also held those statements to be n......
-
Chapter 2 - §11. Expert opinion
...may "rely on hearsay in forming an opinion, and may tell the jury in general terms that he did so." People v. Gonzales (2d Dist.2019) 34 Cal. App.5th 1081, 1089. The courts of appeal have disagreed about whether expert testimony that uses an Internet database to identify a drug is inadmissi......