1
2
3
4
5
6
Jeff Adachi
Public Defender
City and County of San Francisco
Teresa Caffese
Chief Attorney
Jan M. Lecklikner, Sbn: 83608
Deputy Public Defender
258a Laguna Honda Blvd.
San Francisco, ca 94127
(415) 753-7250
Attorney for Minor
7
Superior Court of California
San Francisco County
Juvenile Division
8
9
10
In the Matter of
Petition No. JW05-6904
11
XXXX,
12
A Minor.
13
DATE: 1-10-06
TIME: 1:30 p.m.
DEPT: 30
14
15
Points & Authorities
Incompetency Based on Immaturity
16
17
18
19
1. If a minor is incompetent then the juvenile proceeding must be
suspended.
In 1978, the California Appellate court held that the right to effective counsel is a due
20
process right under the constitution.1
21
Chambers v. Municipal Court,3 the James H. Court found that counsel cannot effectively
22
Relying on Hale v. Superior Court
1
James H. v. Superior Court of Riverside (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 169.
2
Hale v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 221.
3
Chambers v. Municipal Court (1974) 43 Cal. App.3d 809.
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
and
1
represent a defendant who is unable to understand the proceedings or to rationally assist
2
her.4
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
James H., supra., at 174; quoting Hale v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 221, 228
and relying also on Chambers v. Municipal Court (1974) 43 Cal. App.3d 809, 813.
1
2
2. Competency proceedings for Minors is broader and different than that
for adults.
3
The James H. court was faced with a minor who showed borderline mental retardation
4
and drug dependency from paint sniffing. The court ultimately decided that the minor
5
was incompetent to stand trial but found that the adult statutes of Penal Code sections 1368
6
and 1370 did not control and instead turned to the juvenile code sections of Welfare and
7
Institutions Code sections 705 and 6650. The court found that it could Aborrow@ the
8
analysis from the adult statutes for guidance.
9
ACourts have the inherent power to create new forms of procedure in particular
10
pending cases. >The . . . power arises from necessity where, in the absence of any
11
previously established procedural rule, rights would be lost or the court would be unable to
12
function.=@5 The court suggested that either the analysis of 1367 be followed or the
13
statement of the United States Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States which held that the
14
test is whether the minor has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a
15
reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as a
16
factual understanding of the proceedings against him.6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
James H., supra at 175 quoting Witkin Cal., Procedure (2d ed.) Courts section 123,
6
James H., supra at 177 relying on Dusky v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 402.
p. 392.
Almost twenty years later, the appellate court again addressed the issue of
1
2
incompetency in the juvenile courts in In re Patrick H..7 This court was faced with the
3
remedy for a minor who was incompetent to stand trial because of mental illness. Once
4
determined to be incompetent, the minor was placed at Napa State Hospital. However,
5
the court held that a finding of incompetence in a juvenile proceeding should not result in a
6
confinement order or its equivalent.8
7
3. XXXXimmaturity rises to the level of incompetence here.
However, these two seminal cases do not address the minor who is incompetent
8
9
because of immaturity. In a review of cases on the issue of juvenile incompetency, this is
10
one of first impression. In the 2005 Roper case, the United States Supreme Court has
11
recently recognized that juveniles are still in a process of development and, therefore,
12
should not be subject to the death penalty.
13
penalty should not be imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished,
14
to a substantial degree, by reason of youth and immaturity. 10
9
The court recognized that the most severe
XXXXwas 11 years old when the incident occurred which is the basis for this petition.
15
16
He is now 12 years old and is characterized by Dr. Janice Thomas as Apre-adolescent.@
17
He is unable to weigh and consider his choices and potential consequences, he does not
18
understand what is happening in court and he cannot assist his counsel in the preparation of
19
20
7
In re Patrick H. (1977) 54 Cal. App. 4th 1346.
8
In re Patrick H., supra at 1359 citing In re Mary T. (1985) 176 Cal. App. 3d 38,
9
Roper v. Simmons ( 2005) 543 U.S. ______.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
43.
10
Id. at __ (p. 17 of printout).
1
h is defense or consideration of possible outcomes both as to the charges and possible
2
consequences.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
4. Conclusion
This court is in the position of the court in James. H. which recognized the inherent
3
power of the court to chart a course in new waters. Taking into consideration the recent
4
analysis of the United States Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons and the historical
5
analysis of the California appellate courts in James. H. and Patrick H., it is requested that
6
this court find the minor incompetent to stand trial based on his immaturity and release him
7
from custody.
8
Dated: January 9, 2006
9
Respectfully Submitted
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jan M. Lecklikner
Deputy Public Defender
1
2
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
4
5
I, the undersigned say:
6
I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the above action. My business
7
8
9
10
11
address is 258A Laguna Honda Blvd, San Francisco, California 94l16.
On January 9, 2006, I personally served the attached on the following parties:
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
City and County of San Francisco
Thomas Cullinan
Assistant District Attorney
375 Woodside Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94127
12
13
14
15
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on
January 9, 2006, at San Francisco, California.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
____________________________