People v. Godoy

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAUL GODOY, Defendant and Appellant.

B297521

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

December 22, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA454904)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William N. Sterling and Ray G. Jurado, Judges. Affirmed as modified.

Emma Gunderson and Michael Tetreault, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Heidi Salerno, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

The jury found defendant and appellant Saul Godoy guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)¹ and attempted carjacking (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 215, subd. (a)). In a separate proceeding, the trial court found true the allegations that Godoy had two prior strikes under the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), a prior serious felony conviction under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and two prison priors under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced Godoy to ten years in prison, plus a five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony and a one-year enhancement for a prison prior under section 667.5, subdivision (b).²

Godoy contends that (1) the trial court erroneously denied his motion to represent himself without counsel under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta); (2)a conditional remand is warranted for the trial court to determine his eligibility for a mental health diversion program under section 1001.36; and (3) this court should strike his one-year prior felony conviction enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b).

We order that the abstract of judgment be modified to strike Godoy's one-year prior prison term sentencing enhancement. As modified, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

FACTS

The offense conduct

Around 7:30 p.m. on February 23, 2017, as Carmen R. returned home and was getting ready to lock her car, Godoy came up to her and tried to grab her keys out of her hand. A physical struggle ensued, and Godoy took a set of keys from Carmen, but the set did not include the key to her car. He entered the driver's side of the car. When Carmen saw Godoy in her car, trying to start the car with the wrong key, she pushed the car door closed to trap him inside "so that somebody might come and get him." Some neighbors came to assist, and they dragged Godoy out of the car. He ran across the street. Carmen called the police.

A police officer located Godoy in a transitional living residence across the street from where the incident took place. Godoy was detained by law enforcement, and afterCarmen identified him as the person who took her keys, he was arrested and booked. The arresting officer did not drug test Godoy, but described Godoy's demeanor as consistent with someone on methamphetamine.

The criminal case - pretrial proceedings

Godoy was charged with second degree robbery (§ 211 [count 1]) and attempted carjacking (§§ 664, 215, subd. (a) [count 2]). Additional allegations stated that Godoy had prior serious felony convictions as defined by section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and section 667.5, subdivision (b).

At the arraignment hearing on April 24, 2017, the trial court granted Godoy's first request to represent himself under Faretta. The court appointed stand-by counsel in case questions about Godoy's competency arose. Godoy later filed a motion for discovery and a motion to dismiss.

On August 30, 2017, after Godoy announced he was ready for trial, the prosecution sought a competency evaluation, based on information about Godoy's past mental health treatment and his history of using psychiatric medication. After hearing testimony from the investigator, the court (Judge C.H. Rehm, Jr.) declared a doubt as to Godoy's competency and ordered a competency evaluation, appointing Dr. Jack Rothberg as the evaluating psychiatrist.

Dr. Rothberg conducted a psychiatric evaluation on September 13, 2017, under Evidence Code section 730 and Penal Code section 1368, to assess Godoy's competency tostand trial and his ability to represent himself. Dr. Rothberg concluded that Godoy was not competent to represent himself; Dr. Rothberg also had serious doubts about Godoy's competency to stand trial even if represented. According to Godoy, he developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when he was 30 years old, attributing it to his time in the military. Godoy reported that he did not receive treatment for PTSD, but he had been treated with four different psychiatric drugs in the past, and in jail he was receiving three psychiatric drugs, and indicated he had been hearing voices and was paranoid. Godoy admitted to two different psychiatric hospitalizations, one at Stockton State Hospital and the other at Patton State Hospital; he also admitted that when he was hospitalized at Patton State in 2002, he was found incompetent. Godoy also admitted to using cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. Dr. Rothberg's report expressed skepticism about Godoy's claims that he went to Loyola Law School, passed the bar exam, and worked for four years at a law firm. Godoy claimed he was a criminal defense attorney, and that he was disbarred after his felonies. Dr. Rothberg's summary of Godoy's mental status exam stated that while Godoy was pleasant and superficially cooperative, "[h]e admit[ted] to auditory hallucinations and described numerous ideas which appeared to be grandiose delusions. . . . His fund of knowledge, ability to abstract and general intellectual functioning seem to be impaired, as does his judgment." In the final portion of the report, Dr. Rothberg summarized, "Taking into consideration the factthat a good deal of what [Godoy] told me is delusional, and even if much of what he said is accurate, it is logically incoherent and makes little sense. He acknowledges that he has been found incompetent in the past and, moreover, admits that he hears voices and has had delusions. It is quite apparent that Mr. Godoy is not competent to represent himself. Moreover, his lack of judgment due to delusional thinking raises some serious doubt of whether he is even competent if represented."

On October 6, 2017, at the request of Godoy's attorney (Madeline Chang), the court (Judge Rehm) appointed Dr. Risa Grand to conduct a second evaluation. Dr. Grand's report gave her conclusion that Godoy met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, but that he was competent to stand trial. Dr. Grand also concluded that Godoy was rationally able to assist in his own defense so long as he continued to take psychotropic medications. She gave no opinion on whether Godoy was competent to represent himself.³ Godoy reported graduating college and Loyola Law School, and said he practiced criminal law for two to three years until he was convicted of a felony and disbarred. Regarding hispsychiatric history, Godoy reported he was treated at Patton State Hospital in 2002 for three months after being found incompetent to stand trial. He received treatment at the Westwood VA (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs) for psychiatric illness, and had previously and was currently taking prescribed psychiatric medications. He denied any substance abuse history, but several of his prior convictions involved possession or sale of controlled substances. Dr. Grand reported that during Godoy's mental status exam, his speech was clear and he had appropriate eye contact. "He demonstrated good insight into the fact that he needs medication and highlighted that he suffers from [PTSD]." While he may have had more serious symptoms from his PTSD in the past, he reported his current psychiatric medications have alleviated his symptoms ["He reports good benefit of his symptoms . . . ."]. Godoy understood the charges against him and the roles of courtroom personnel. Godoy "indicated that he understands each of the plea options available and would consider a plea bargain if it would involve ongoing treatment at the VA and possible short sentence of two years or less." Dr. Grand found Godoy to be "psychiatrically quite stable with his psychotropic medication" and encouraged him to remain medication compliant. She expressed concern that he might destabilize if he discontinued his medication.

On December 12, 2017, the court held a competency hearing. Godoy appeared with counsel. The parties submitted on the reports of Dr. Grand and Dr. Rothberg.The court (Judge Ray G. Jurado) found appellant mentally competent to stand trial under section 1368.

On March 5, 2018, appellant submitted a new Faretta waiver form and requested to represent himself. After reviewing Godoy's waiver form, the court (Judge Jurado) noted that Dr. Rothberg had found Godoy was not competent to represent himself, and that Dr. Grand found him competent to stand trial, but did not give an opinion on Godoy's competence to represent himself. The court indicated that it was denying Godoy's request to represent himself, finding Godoy was not competent to represent himself, based on Dr. Rothberg's opinion, and on the ground that the request was untimely, coming only 20 days before the scheduled jury trial. Defense counsel offered that Godoy was willing to submit to another examination on his competency for self-representation, but the court was not willing to put the case over for yet another doctor's opinion on competency. On the issue of timeliness, defense counsel stated that if ...