People v. Williams

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEVIN LEE WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

C088696

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)

January 5, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. Nos. 18CF01285, 18CF03357)

A jury found defendant Kevin Lee Williams guilty of possessing methamphetamine and marijuana in jail, as well as providing false identification to an officer. He was sentenced to an 11-year aggregate prison term.

On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in finding him mentally competent to stand trial, despite the examining psychologist finding him incompetent based on his inability to assist counsel in his defense and recommending a psychiatric evaluation for possible antipsychotic medication; (2) he did not violate Penal Code section 4573.6¹ by bringing marijuana into a jail; and (3) his prior prison term enhancements must be stricken, in light of Senate Bill No. 136 (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1) (SB 136).

We agree as to each contention. We reverse the marijuana conviction and strike the prior prison term enhancements. We conditionally reverse the methamphetamine and providing false identification convictions and remand for a retrospective competency hearing.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

An officer found defendant lying on the sidewalk, in a fetal position. The officer woke defendant and asked his name. Defendant answered, "Mike Williams." When the officer asked his date of birth, defendant said he was 44. Asked if he was on probation or parole, defendant said, "neither."

The officer radioed dispatch; no match could be found for the information provided.

The officer again asked defendant's name. This time defendant gave his true name, "Kevin Williams," and when asked his date of birth, he said December 15, 1974. He again denied being on probation or parole.

Dispatch was then able to identify defendant, but under a different date of birth. Dispatch also confirmed defendant was on parole. Defendant was arrested for providing a false name.

A responding officer searched defendant incident to the arrest and found nothing. When she placed him in a patrol car, she asked if he had any illegal items on him not found in the search. Defendant did not respond. The officer warned defendant thatbringing drugs into a secured facility would lead to a felony charge. Defendant said nothing, but shook his head left to right.

During the jail booking process, a small bag of methamphetamine was discovered on defendant. Two days later, defendant was strip-searched and 1.1 grams of marijuana was discovered. When asked by a jail deputy if he wanted to speak about the marijuana, defendant said it wasn't his fault the marijuana wasn't found during the initial search.

A jury found defendant guilty of possessing methamphetamine in jail (§ 4573.6, subd. (a)); giving false identification to an officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)); and possessing marijuana in jail (§ 4573.6, subd. (a)). The jury separately found defendant had suffered five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

The trial court imposed an 11-year aggregate term, consisting of the four-year upper term for possessing methamphetamine in jail, one year (one-third the middle term) for possessing marijuana in jail, and six one-year prior prison term enhancements. A six-month term for giving a false identification was imposed to run concurrently.

DISCUSSION

I. The Competency Finding

Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated his due process rights, when it found him mentally competent to stand trial, despite the examining psychologist finding him unable to assist counsel with his defense. The People respond that substantial evidence supports the trial court's competency finding. We agree with defendant.

A. Additional Background

A defendant is mentally incompetent to stand trial if either of the two "Dusky" prongs are satisfied: (1) he is unable to "understand the nature of the criminal proceedings" or (2) he is unable to "assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner." (§ 1367, subd. (a); Dusky v. U.S. (1960) 362 U.S. 402 [4 L.Ed.2d 824] (Dusky); People v. Buenrostro (2018) 6 Cal.5th 367, 387 (Buenrostro).)

Here, a doubt was declared as to defendant's competence three times during the pendency of his case. Each time, a new psychologist was appointed to evaluate him, with the same judge presiding throughout. The first two psychologists found defendant competent as to both prongs. The third psychologist found, in a "close call," defendant incompetent based on his inability to assist counsel in the conduct of his defense in a rational manner.

1. The First Report, Hearing and Ruling

Before trial, defense counsel declared a doubt, and the trial court appointed a psychologist to evaluate defendant. The psychologist's report, filed May 5, 2018, concluded defendant could understand the nature and purpose of the charges, and had sufficient mental capacity to consult with his attorney and assist rationally. It described defendant as "friendly and candid," and reported that when asked why he thought his competency was in question, defendant admitted he had been belligerent in court.

Within the report, however, was a hint of a more serious disorder. At one point it noted, "the file suggested schizophrenia," but also, "[i]f there is a more sinister disorder (the file suggests this) it was not evident in the evaluation with the undersigned." The report went on to say, "[t]he defendant claimed that the psychotic diagnosis may have been drug related, and the jail file supported that possibility."

The report also contained a diagnosis of stimulant abuse, stimulant induced psychotic disorder and stated that his "symptoms resolved with sobriety." The report concluded, "[s]obriety is indicated as a route of recovery for this defendant; his psychosis appeared to be drug induced," adding that treatment with antipsychotic medication was neither medically appropriate nor in defendant's best interest. (Bold omitted.)

At the following hearing, the parties submitted on the report, and the trial court adopted the findings and reinstated proceedings.

2. The Second Report, Hearing and Ruling

A month later, the trial court granted defendant's Faretta² motion to represent himself. Two months after that, the trial court revoked the grant and declared a doubt as to defendant: "I frankly . . . [am] entertaining a doubt under Penal Code Section 1368, and I'm finding that on your decorum you can no longer represent yourself." The court appointed a second psychologist to evaluate defendant.

The second psychologist's report, filed on August 15, 2018, also concluded defendant was mentally competent to stand trial. Doing so, it noted defendant "may be a more difficult client for his attorney due to his talkative, expansive, and animated manner, and tendency to try to extol his perceived legal knowledge and opinions."

The report, however, reflected that defendant's "parole agent noted a major problematic area of concern is [defendant's] mental health instability." According to the parole agent, defendant had been "hospitalized on several occasions for displaying paranoid schizophrenic behavior," and defendant had previously received psychotropic medication.

The report also quoted a jail deputy who told the psychologist: "When [defendant is] on meds, he's normal. When he is off, you can't talk to him. He attacked another inmate and said he thought the inmate was ISIS." Consistent with that, the report stated that while defendant was in prison, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and he was prescribed medication. Defendant admitted he had previously taken antipsychotic medication, though he had refused to take medications prescribed for him at the jail. He had also refused to take medications while on parole.

The report stated that defendant met the diagnostic criteria for schizoaffective, bipolar type, in full remission, but substance-induced psychotic disorder was another possibility.

As to defendant's ability to consult with counsel, defendant was assessed with the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised exam (ECST-R).³ That exam found "moderate impairment" in his ability to consult with counsel, though, "this level of impairment is typically associated with competent defendants." The report went on to say, "[a]lthough he may be insistent in asserting his own legal opinions, there was no evidence of impaired ability to agree/disagree/settle disagreements with his attorney, should he choose to do so." It concluded, defendant "has adequate factual and rational ability . . . to consult with counsel, if he chooses to do so."

The report also noted defendant was not taking medication, and "[s]ince [defendant] is currently not exhibiting any significant disruptive psychotic symptoms, treatment with antipsychotic medication is not presently necessary."⁴ However, it went on to say: "[s]hould he have a relapse of psychotic and mood symptoms during the adjudication process, he would likely benefit from treatment with appropriate antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medications to restore his mental competence." But "[a]s long as his psychotic and mood symptoms remain in remission and he continues to be mentally competent, treatment with antipsychotic medication is not necessary."

At the following hearing, the parties submitted on the report, and the trial court again found defendant competent and reinstated proceedings.

3. The Third Report, Hearing and Ruling

A month later, at a Marsden⁵ hearing, defense counsel told the court "I have a client who, from my view, very clearly . . . has some very significant mental-health issues and/or...