Rodriguez v. Super. Ct. of Santa Clara Cnty.

316 Cal.Rptr.3d 31

539 P.3d 442

Mario RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner,

v.The SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent;

The People, Real Party in Interest.

S272129

Supreme Court of California.

December 14, 2023

Sixth Appellate District, H049016, Santa Clara County Superior Court, C1647395, C1650275, Eric S. Geffon, Judge

Brian C. McComas, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Petitioner.

Ellen McDonnell, Public Defender (Contra Costa), and Diana Garrido, Deputy Public Defender, for Contra Costa County Public Defender Office and California Public Defenders Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Emi MacLean and Kim Pederson for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California and Disability Rights California as Amiri Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

DLA Piper and Justin R. Sarno, Los Angeles, for Silicon Valley De-Bug as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Jeffrey F. Rosen, District Attorney, Alexandra W. Gadeberg, Crystal Tindell Seiler and Barbara A. Cathcart, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

Summer Stephan, District Attorney (San Diego), Linh Lam and Jennifer Kaplan, Deputy District Attorneys, for the San Diego County District Attorney as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General, Gregory D. Brown and Kevin L. Quade, Deputy Attorneys General, for State Department of State Hospitals and State Department of Developmental Services as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.

A criminal defendant cannot be tried while mentally incompetent. (Pen. Code, § 1367, subd. (a).)¹ Although such defendants may be involuntarily committed for the purpose of restoring their competency (see § 1370; Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 100–101, 226 Cal. Rptr.3d 110, 406 P.3d 782), the commitment may not last indefinitely (§ 1370, subd. (c)(1); Jackson v. Indiana (1972) 406 U.S. 715, 720, 92 S.Ct. 1845, 32 L.Ed.2d 435; In re Davis (1973) 8 Cal.3d 798, 801, 106 Cal.Rptr. 178, 505 P.2d 1018 (Davis)). The statutory scheme governing competency proceedings limits the term of commitment. For individuals like defendant Mario Rodriguez charged with offenses that carry a maximum sentence exceeding two years, the period of commitment due to incompetency is limited to two years. (See § 1370, subd. (c)(1).)

In this case, Rodriguez was adjudged incompetent, committed to a state hospital, and then returned to court when a medical director of the hospital filed a certificate indicating he was restored to competency. (See § 1372, subd. (a)(1).) The certificate was filed within the two-year time limit specified by section 1370, subdivision (c)(1) (section 1370(c)(1)). By statute, the court was supposed to determine whether to approve the certificate — that is, decide "whether or not" Rodriguez has "recovered competence." (§ 1372, subd. (c)(1).) However, primarily because of restrictions on court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Rodriguez did not receive such a hearing within the two-year period of section 1370(c)(1). Claiming the time for commitment had run out, Rodriguez moved to dismiss the charges against him. The Court of Appeal rejected his claim. It held that time had not run out because a commitment ends when a certificate of restoration is filed, not when the court determines whether the defendant has been restored to competence. (Rodriguez v. Superior Court (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 628, 652, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 592 (Rodriguez).)

The parties ask us to resolve a question of statutory interpretation: For purposes of calculating the maximum commitment period under section 1370(c)(1), does an incompetency commitment end when the medical treatment provider informs the court that the defendant has regained competency by filing a certificate of restoration, or does the commitment end only when the court has determined whether the defendant has been restored to competency? We resolve this question by determining whether the period between the filing of the certificate, and the court’s ruling on that certificate, is covered by section 1370(c)(1)’s two-year limit. And we conclude this period is not excluded from the two-year limit.

Because we reject the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that an incompetency commitment ends with the filing of a certificate of restoration, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal. We remand with instructions for the Court of Appeal to consider issues that remain outstanding, including whether Rodriguez’s aggregate commitments have exceeded the limit set by section 1370(c)(1) and what remedy he may be entitled to if the limit has been exceeded. (See, e.g., Camacho v. Superior Court, (2023) 15 Cal.5th 354, 382–390 & fn. 5, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 490, 534 P.3d 484 (Camacho); Jackson v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 106, 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 110, 406 P.3d 782.)

I.Factual and Procedural Background

In December 2016, the Santa Clara County District Attorney charged Rodriguez with several felonies, each carrying a maximum sentence in excess of two years imprisonment. The charged offenses included assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1) [maximum punishment of four years in state prison]); oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear (§ 287, subd. (c)(2)(A) [maximum punishment of eight years in state prison]); rape by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear (§§ 261, subd. (a)(2), 264, subd. (a) [eight years]); and infliction of corporal injury on a present or former spouse, or a present or former cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a) [four years]). Rodriguez was held to answer on all charges.

In late 2017, the court declared a doubt as to Rodriguez’s competency, ordered a hearing regarding his competency, and suspended all proceedings. In May 2018, the court found Rodriguez not competent to stand trial. On May 24, the court issued its commitment order, directing that Rod- riguez "be committed to the [State] Department of State Hospitals for placement in a locked psychiatric facility." The order specified that "[t]he Sheriff shall redeliver the patient to the Court upon receiving from the state hospital a copy of the certification of mental competency." (See §§ 1370, subd. (a)(1)(C), 1372, subd. (a)(2).) The court also ordered the State Department of State Hospitals (Department) to "provide a placement for defendant for treatment of his mental illness and restoration of competency by 5:00 p.m., June 29, 2018" and that Rodriguez be transported to his placement by that date. The record does not indicate when Rodriguez was actually transported or admitted to a state hospital.

On September 7, 2018, the medical director of Atascadero State Hospital certified Rodriguez as restored to competency. The parties stipulated that the certificate of restoration was filed with the superior court the same date. On September 20, the court found Rodriguez had been restored to competency and reinstated criminal proceedings.

In early January 2019, the court declared a new doubt as to Rodriguez’s competency to stand trial and again suspended criminal proceedings. In April, the court found Rodriguez not competent.

On May 16, 2019, the court issued a second commitment order, once more directing that Rodriguez be committed to the Department. As before, the court specified a date by which the Department was to provide a placement for Rodriguez, setting that date as June 14, 2019. The court further noted in its commitment order that it found Rodriguez did "not have the capacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication," and it ordered the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication.

On January 9, 2020, the medical director of Atascadero State Hospital certified that Rodriguez was restored to competency. The parties stipulated the certificate of restoration was filed with the superior court the same date. Among the documents transmitted to the court, the medical director included a letter stating that Rodriguez was "being returned to court on psychotropic medication." "It is important," continued the director, "that [Rodriguez] remain on this medication for his own personal benefit and to enable him to be certified [as competent] under Section 1372 of the Penal Code." The date when Rodriguez was discharged from the state hospital does not appeal in the record. (Rodriguez, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 638, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 592.)

On January 24, 2020, the court set May 21 as the date for a contested hearing on Rodriguez’s competency. In March, the court suspended almost all its operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the competency hearing set for May 21 did not take place.

On July 17, 2020, the parties returned to court following the relaxation of certain COVID-19 restrictions. The court rescheduled the competency hearing for August 24, a date later reset to September 21 at the request of both parties. The hearing did not occur on that date either. Instead, the court continued the hearing to November 2 "due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the lack of courtrooms and court resources available." The court subsequently continued the competency hearing several times due to the "pandemic and the [s]uperior [c]ourt’s limited trial capacity."

In March 2021, Rodriguez filed a motion to dismiss. Even though the Department had timely determined that he was competent to stand trial, Rodriguez argued that he was entitled to a dismissal because his commitment had lasted more than two years. Rodriguez contended a commitment must be measured based on "dates from one judicial decision until a second judicial decision" — in this case, from the date when the court issued the commitment order to the date when it eventually approved or rejected the certificate of restoration. Rodriguez thus argued his total commitment period — counting days from his first and second commitments — exceeded two years and...