1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PAULINO DURÁN
PUBLIC DEFENDER
9591 Kiefer Boulevard
Sacramento, California 95827
Telephone: (916) 875-5077
Reuben Moreno
Assistant Public Defender
Attorney for minor XXX.
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SITTING AS THE JUVENILE COURT
9
10
11
In the Matter of
Petition No. 103889
No. 97
Tyrone Earl Ray Bullock,
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
COUNSEL’S EXPRESSION OF A
DOUBT AS TO THE MINOR’S
COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES
OF COURT, RULE 5.645
12
13
14
A Minor.
15
16
17
18
Dept. Department
TO: JAN SCULLY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR SACRAMENTO COUNTY
19
20
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 8, 2008, at 3:30 p.m., or as soon
21
thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department No. 97 of the above entitled court,
22
the subject, Tyrone Earl Ray Bullock, by and through his attorney, Reuben Moreno,
23
24
Assistant Public Defender, will move the court to declare a doubt as to the subject’s
25
competency to proceed in juvenile delinquency proceedings.
26
27
28
-1XXX
xxxxxxx
Motion for Reconsideration
03/07/16
533579951
This motion is based on this notice, the pleadings, records, and files in this action,
1
2
the attached memorandum of points and authorities and oral argument to be presented at
3
4
the hearing.
5
DATED: March
6
, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
7
__________________________
Reuben Moreno
Assistant Public Defender
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2XXX
xxxxxxx
Motion for Reconsideration
03/07/16
533579951
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PAULINO DURÁN
PUBLIC DEFENDER
9591 Kiefer Boulevard
Sacramento, California 95827
Telephone: (916) 875-5077
Reuben Moreno
Assistant Public Defender
Attorney for minor Tyrone Earl Ray Bullock
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SITTING AS THE JUVENILE COURT
9
10
11
In the Matter of
Petition No. 103889
No. 97
XXX.,
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
COUNSEL’S EXPRESSION OF A
DOUBT AS TO THE MINOR’S
COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES
OF COURT, RULE 5.645
12
13
14
A Minor.
15
16
17
18
19
INTRODUCTION
20
21
Dept. Department
On February 4, 2008, XXX. (XXX), came before the court for a detention hearing
in the above entitled matter. Prior to the detention hearing counsel for XXX attempted to
22
23
interview him regarding the detention hearing, the arraignment process, further court
24
processes and regarding his state and federal constitutional rights during these
25
proceedings and other future proceedings. After attempting to interview XXX, it became
26
27
apparent to counsel that XXX did not understand or appreciate what counsel was trying
28
to explain to him. It was unclear whether the XXX was suffering from a mental health
-3XXX
xxxxxxx
Motion for Reconsideration
03/07/16
533579951
1
2
disorder or was developmentally disabled. Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear to counsel
that XXX did not understand and appreciate the nature of the delinquency proceedings he
3
4
5
found himself in, nor was he cognitively capable of assisting counsel in any meaningful
way in his defense.
6
After interviewing XXX, counsel expressed a doubt to the court pursuant to
7
8
California Rules of Court, Rule 5.645, and asked that an expert be appointed to evaluate
9
him to determine whether he is presently competent to stand trial, and that delinquency
10
proceedings be suspended pending that evaluation. The court refused to find a doubt
11
12
pursuant to Rule 5.645 indicating in part that it needed more information about XXX.
13
Shortly thereafter, counsel met with XXX’s mother outside the courtroom.
14
15
16
17
XXX’s mother had planned to attend the detention hearing but was late. In speaking with
XXX’s mother, she indicated that the minor suffered from bipolar disorder and
schizophrenia.
XXX’s mother further indicated that the minor has previously been
18
19
20
medicated for these conditions, however could not recall the names of the medications he
had been prescribed.
21
LAW AND ARGUMENT
22
I.
23
24
25
WHAT IS THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR DETERMINING THE COMPETENCY OF
A MINOR TO STAND TRIAL IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS?
26
All states define the legal standard for competence to stand trial in a manner
27
28
consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dusky v. U.S. (1960) 362
-4XXX
xxxxxxx
Motion for Reconsideration
03/07/16
533579951
1
U.S. 402 and affirmed in Godinez v. Moran (1993) 113 S.Ct. 2680: whether the
2
defendant (minor) has “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a
3
4
reasonable degree of rational understanding” and whether the defendant (minor) has a
5
“rational as well as factual understanding of proceedings against him.”
6
are important regarding the application of this standard in juvenile court.
1
Several points
7
First, competence to stand trial is recognized as a requisite for due process in
8
9
delinquency cases in a majority of states, including California.
10
11
Second, the Dusky standard is the definition of competence to stand trial in
12
delinquency cases. (See James H. v. Superior Court (Riverside) (1977) 77 Cal.App.3d
13
169, 176-177 and Timothy J. v. Superior Court (Sacramento) (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th
14
15
847, 857.)
16
Third, Penal Code section 1367 et seq. and analysis of appellate cases provide
17
18
guidance regarding the specific types of abilities associated with the two broad categories
19
in the Dusky standard.
In that the Dusky standard applies in juvenile court, it is
20
reasonable to assume that the specific types of abilities used by criminal courts to assess
21
22
23
competence apply in juvenile court as well. These specific abilities will be discussed
later. However, in general, they include the minor’s understanding and appreciation of
24
25
26
27
28
1
In support of these broad principals from the United States Supreme Court, California
codified these holdings in Penal Code section 1367 et seq. and promulgated the
California Rules of Court Rule 5.645 (formerly Rule 1498), specifically addressing
juvenile competency. The primary cases interpreting the juvenile competency standard
are James H. v. Superior Court (Riverside) (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 169 and Timothy J. v.
Superior Court (Sacramento) (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 847.
-5XXX
xxxxxxx
Motion for Reconsideration
03/07/16
533579951
1
2
the roles of various participants in the trial process; the ability to understand
communications from counsel and to be able to communicate meaningfully with counsel
3
4
in developing a defense; the ability to understand, appreciate and make decisions about
5
the waiver of important rights, especially decisions about pleading and plea agreements;
6
and the ability to testify at trial if necessary. The relevant abilities do not pertain only to
7
8
9
10
formal trial, they refer to the minor’s role in all stages of the juvenile delinquency
process, including arraignment, pleading, attorney consultation and the trial
(jurisdictional hearing and disposition hearing) on the evidence.
11
12
Fourth, in that the Dusky standard applies in both criminal and juvenile cases, it is
13
clear in this jurisdiction that the same threshold of ability is required as in criminal
14
court. It is clear that the same general abilities have to be weighed, that a competent
15
16
minor in juvenile court must have the same degree of abilities as a competent defendant
17
in criminal court, to the same extent as a competent defendant in criminal court. In other
18
words, children in delinquency cases must be just as capable as the competent adult in a
19
20
criminal case.
21
Finally, in California the law is clear regarding developmental immaturity as a
22
23
24
legally accepted basis for incompetence to stand trial. Timothy J. v. Superior Court,
supra, 150 Cal.App.4th 847 states:
25
Returning to Dusky, the test stated there does not define incompetency in
terms of mental illness or disability. (Dusky, supra, 362 U.S. 402 [4
L.Ed.2d at p. 825]; United States v. Zovluck (S.D.N.Y. 1977) 425 F.Supp.
719, 721.) Moreover, the court stated that “it is not enough for the district
judge to find that ‘the defendant [is oriented to time and place and [has]
some recollection of events.’” (Dusky, supra, 362 U.S. 402 [4 L.Ed.2d at p.
26
27
28
-6XXX
xxxxxxx
Motion for Reconsideration
03/07/16
533579951
825].) The question is cognitive, whether the defendant’s condition is such
that he lacks that degree of rationality required by law (United States v.
Adams (S.D.N.Y. 1969) 297 F.Supp. 596, 597) so as to have “the mental
acuity to see, hear and digest the evidence, and the ability to communicate
with counsel in helping prepare an effective defense.” (Odle v. Woodford
(9th Cir. 2001) 238 F.3d 1084, 1089.)
1
2
3
4
5
As a matter of law and logic, an adult’s incompetence to stand trial must
arise from a mental disorder or developmental disability that limits his or
her ability to understand the nature of the proceedings and to assist counsel.
(See Pen. Code, § 1367, subd. (a).) The same may not be said of young
children whose developmental immaturity may result in trial incompetence
despite the absence of any underlying mental or developmental
abnormality.
6
7
8
9
10
***
11
Thus, for purpose of determining competency to stand trial, we see no
significant difference between an incompetent adult who functions mentally
at the level of a 10 or 11 year old due to a developmental disability and that
of a normal 11 year old whose mental development and capacity are
likewise not equal to that of a normal adult. Under either condition or state,
the test is “‘whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his
lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he
has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against
him.’” (Dusky, supra, 362 402 [4 L.Ed.2d at p. 825].) (Timothy J. v.
Superior Court, supra, at pp. 860-861.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
There are numerous conditions that can limit a person’s “present ability to consult
20
with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and/or limit his
21
22
ability to have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.
23
Typically, courts must have evidence regarding the cause of the minor’s deficits in the
24
abilities noted, which in this case counsel for the minor has provided, such as possible
25
developmental disability (mental retardation). Moreover, after speaking with the minor’s
26
27
mother, she informs counsel that the minor suffers from bipolar disorder and
28
schizophrenia.
-7XXX
xxxxxxx
Motion for Reconsideration
03/07/16
533579951
Historically, serious mental illness and/or mental retardation have been the most
1
2
common reasons for deficits in abilities resulting in a finding of incompetence. In this
3
4
case, if the minor is actively suffering from bipolar disorder he may be experiencing a
5
distinct period of abnormally and persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable mood.
6
During this period of mood disturbance, he could have several of the following symptoms
7
8
to a significant degree:
9
1. Inflated self-esteem or grandiosity.
10
2. Decreased need for sleep.
11
12
3. More talkative than usual or pressure to keep talking.
13
4. Flight of ideas or subjective experience that thoughts are racing.
14
15
5. Distractibility, i.e., attention too easily drawn to unimportant or
16
irrelevant external stimuli.
17
18
6. Increase in goal-directed activity, either socially, at work or school, or
19
sexually, or psychomotor agitation.
20
21
7. Excessive involvement in pleasurable activities that have a high potential
22
for painful consequences.
23
24
25
A person affected by bipolar disorder may also experience a distinct period of
persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable mood, which will cause him or her to exhibit
26
27
several of the above symptoms. Furthermore the disturbance in mood and the change in
28
-8XXX
xxxxxxx
Motion for Reconsideration
03/07/16
533579951
1
function are observable by others, which may explain counsel’s observations of the
2
minor.2
3
Also, if the minor is suffering from schizophrenia he could be experiencing:
4
5
1. Delusions.
6
7
2. Hallucinations.
8
3. Disordered speech, such as frequent derailment or incoherence.
9
10
4. Grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior.
11
5. Negative symptoms, such as affective flattening, alogia, or avolition,
12
13
which could further explain the behavior observed by counsel, leading counsel to the
14
15
decision to express a doubt as to the minor’s competency in this case.3
16
In this case, there are several factors on which counsel bases his opinion that
17
18
XXXis not competent to stand trial at this time, consistent with the standard pronounced
19
in Dusky, James H., and Timothy J. In retrospect, if XXXis currently suffering from
20
these serious mental health disorders, it could explain his irrational behavior when
21
22
23
counsel tried to interview him, his inability to understand and appreciate the delinquency
court proceedings, and his inability to assist counsel in his defense.
24
25
26
27
28
See Lewis’s Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: A Comprehensive Textbook, Andre’s
Martin, M.D. and Fred Volkmar, M.D., eds. (2007) at p. 514.
3
See the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, Fourth Edition
Text Revision, (2000), at p. 312.
2
-9XXX
xxxxxxx
Motion for Reconsideration
03/07/16
533579951
Therefore, based on counsel’s prior expression of a doubt as to XXX’s
1
2
3
4
competency to stand trial, and the information subsequently obtained by counsel from
XXX’s mother regarding his mental health condition, counsel request the court
5
reconsider its ruling regarding appointing an expert to examine him to determine his
6
competency pursuant to Rule 5.645.
7
8
Here, as set forth above, and by the representations of counsel, the only conclusion
9
that the court can come to in this matter is to declare a doubt that XXX is competent to
10
stand trial at this time. To proceed further in juvenile delinquency proceedings with an
11
12
incompetent citizen would be a violation of the his due process rights under the 14th
13
Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 15 of the California
14
Constitution, and his right to counsel under the 6th Amendment of the United States
15
16
Constitution.
17
Hence, pursuant to Rule 5.645, subdivision (d), the prevailing case law, and upon
18
19
a finding that XXX in this case is not competent to stand trial, this court must suspend
20
juvenile delinquency proceedings, appoint an expert to evaluate the his competency to
21
stand trial, and absolutely cannot proceed any further on the filed petitions.
22
CONCLUSION
23
24
Having shown that there is credible evidence to express a doubt that the subject is
25
26
not competent to stand trial, this court must declare a doubt that the subject is not
27
competent and suspend juvenile delinquency proceedings until such time he becomes
28
competent to proceed.
- 10 XXX
xxxxxxx
Motion for Reconsideration
03/07/16
533579951
DATED: March
1
2
, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
3
4
_______________________________
Reuben Moreno
Assistant Public Defender
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11 XXX
xxxxxxx
Motion for Reconsideration
03/07/16
533579951