People v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 17 April 2018
• Docket Number: E065757
• Citation: 22 Cal.App.5th 374,231 Cal.Rptr.3d 426
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Patrick Lowell JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

22 Cal.App.5th 374

231 Cal.Rptr.3d 426

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Patrick Lowell JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

E065757

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

Filed April 17, 2018

Rebecca P. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Lynne G. McGinnis, and Kristine A. Gutierrez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

SLOUGH, J.

Patrick Jackson appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of lewd contact with a minor, arguing the trial court erroneously found him competent to stand trial before taking his guilty plea and again before sentencing him. After the trial court acknowledged a doubt about his competency and committed him to Patton State Hospital, numerous psychologists found him incompetent to stand trial and unlikely to be restored to competency because he suffers from a stable developmental disability—mild mental retardation—which limits his capacity for understanding and communication.

However, in early 2010, hospital staff changed their minds after drilling Jackson until he could answer simple, concrete questions about the judicial system. In February 2010, the trial court found Jackson competent based on their new report and then accepted his guilty plea. Before he could be sentenced, though, new psychological evaluations reported Jackson denied his guilt and did not understand he had pled guilty, and questioned the basis of the report finding him competent. In June 2010, the trial court found substantial evidence Jackson was incompetent.

Over a year later, and in the face of additional evaluations finding Jackson incompetent and unlikely to improve, the trial court again found Jackson was competent and sentenced him to three years in state prison. This time, the court based the competency finding on the contents of an evaluation Patton State Hospital staff had prepared nearly nine months earlier which simply copied the analysis from its early 2010 report and failed to address any of the concerns raised thereafter.

On appeal, Jackson argues neither his conviction nor his sentence can stand because neither competency finding was based on substantial evidence. We agree and therefore reverse the judgment.¹

IFACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case arose out of incidents in early August 2008 between Jackson and the 13-year-old grandson of a family friend. Jackson was swimming with the child in a pool at the mobile home park in Yucca Valley where he lived with his elderly mother. Jackson was giving the child a piggyback ride and asked the child to "hump his back." The two then went to the bathroom by the pool, and Jackson touched the victim's penis with his hand and said, "It's not growing. It's not growing." Later in the week, Jackson touched the victim's penis through his clothing while they were alone in a vehicle at a shopping center, and Jackson again mentioned the boy's penis was not "growing." On August 8, 2008, the victim told his grandmother, who reported the abuse to police.

A. The Charges and First Finding of Incompetency

The San Bernardino County District Attorney charged Jackson with two counts of lewd acts on a child. ( Pen. Code, § 288, unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code.) On August 20, 2008, based on a request from the public defender, the court declared there was reason to doubt Jackson's competency and suspended criminal proceedings. (§ 1368.) The court ordered further proceedings to evaluate Jackson's competency, appointed Dr. Michael J. Perrotti to examine him, and set a hearing for September 17, 2008. (§ 1369, subd. (a).)

On the date of the hearing, defense counsel informed the court Dr. Perrotti had not yet examined Jackson and suggested substituting a June 20, 2008 competency report prepared by Dr. William H. Jones for proceedings in the Riverside County Superior Court. Dr. Jones found Jackson mildly mentally retarded, saying, "[i]ntellectually, he is at the level of a very young child, comparable to that of a 5 year old." Dr. Jones concluded, "[b]ecause of his very limited intelligence including very limited comprehension [Jackson] is not able to understand current proceedings and is not able to cooperate in a rational manner. Because of the developmental nature of his problems, treatment with antipsychotic medication is not going to help him, and his lack of mental competence is not changeable." Defense counsel provided the report to the court and the prosecutor and they discussed using it in the proceedings in San Bernardino. Ultimately, the prosecutor refused to stipulate to Dr. Jones's report and insisted on obtaining a report from Dr. Perrotti.

Dr. Perrotti too found Jackson had serious cognitive deficits. "He is unable to explain the process of a trial. He is unclear as to the roles of the principals, especially the district attorney. He is unaware of legal entities and their meanings, such as juries." Dr. Perrotti did find Jackson "is able to assist in his defense," because he is "able to understand the nature of the charges against him." However, he found his cognitive deficits rendered him "unable to weigh legal options and the best legal options for himself. He is also unable to make prudent trial-related decisions. His thinking is concrete and primitive."

Dr. Perrotti concluded Jackson is "an intellectually limited man with a limited knowledge of the principals in the proceedings as well as the nature and process of a trial" and therefore "not competent to participate in legal proceedings at this time." He recommended placing Jackson in "special instruction" to ensure "the vocabulary and terminology is broken down into terms he can understand" using "repetitive audiovisual video material" because Jackson "does not possess the ability to understand complex concepts [or] retain complex bits of information."

Based on Dr. Perrotti's report, the trial court found Jackson to be incompetent to stand trial and referred him to the County Mental Health Director for a placement recommendation. On October 22, 2008, the trial court accepted the director's recommendation and sent Jackson to Patton State Hospital (Patton) for 180 days. The court ordered the director of Patton to make periodic written reports, the first due March 31, 2009.

B. Attempts to Restore Competency at Patton State Hospital

On March 9, 2009, Patton staff submitted a progress report. They wrote, "Since admission to Patton State Hospital, Mr. Jackson has received treatment consisting of a structured, supportive environment, individual therapy, medication regimen, and treatment activities aimed at restoring him to competency and reduction of symptoms. Mr. Jackson'[s] initial response to treatment has been slow. His difficulties with written language have been ameliorated with more individual attention by staff members to help him learn verbally. Once his cognitive deficits have been ascertained and strategies to implement learning techniques are implemented, it is hoped that his response to treatment will optimize." They reported Jackson's "cognitive deficits obviously remain significant, and will be explored by neuropsychology consultants to ascertain the best methods of coping with them to facilitate learning of necessary court information."

The progress report concluded Jackson was not able to assist his attorney and did not adequately understand legal proceedings. The problem assisting his attorney stemmed from the fact that his "responses to questions and direction are not always consistent and coherent; he has a difficult time organizing complex concepts and evidences memory difficulties." Regarding court procedures, Jackson "has not correctly identified the four pleas available to him[,] ... [has] not yet expressed a correct understanding of the possible consequences of each of the pleas[,] ... has not correctly explained the nature of a plea bargain, and required prompting to identify the names and roles of the major courtroom participants." The report concluded, "it is the consensus of the Wellness and Recovery Team that [Jackson] is not yet competent to stand trial and should be retained for further treatment."

Defense counsel asked the court to order an updated progress report from Patton because the March 2009 report did not "appropriately address[ ] his issue of [Jackson's] developmentally disabled condition." The trial court agreed, ordered Patton to submit a new competency report, and set a hearing for June 24, 2009. Patton's updated report said, "Psychological testing results suggest that Mr. Jackson suffers from significant intellectual deficits. He has demonstrated numerous weaknesses in comprehending and learning information presented both verbally and visually, as his test scores fall within the mild retardation range of adult intellectual functioning ... He is unable to accurately complete even simple tasks, such as reciting the alphabet or solving basic mathematic calculations ... He has a limited ability to memorize and recall information that is spoken to him, though he slightly benefits from repetition of information. His abstract reasoning is also poor, meaning that his thinking is concrete and simplistic."

The report also addressed whether Jackson's disability left room for him to become competent through treatment. The examiner concluded he "will likely have difficulty in gaining competency to stand trial," because his "cognitive limitations ... may be a result of a biologically inherited intellectual disability ... [meaning] he will have a limited ability to acquire and retain a factual understanding of court processes. In addition, he will have difficulty communicating with his attorney to assist in preparing and presenting his defense." The report noted Patton staff had given Jackson significant individual attention to help him overcome his cognitive deficit, to no...