P. v. Davis
Filed 6/27/06 P. v. Davis CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COCHISE DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant. |
F048133
(Super. Ct. No. F05900940-8)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jon N. Kapetan, Judge.
Paul Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Charles A. French and Angelo S. Edralin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Cochise Davis was committed to Atascadero State Hospital after the trial court found he was not competent to stand trial on one count of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422),[1] two counts of resisting an executive officer (§ 69), and one count of possession of a dirk or dagger (§ 12020, subd. (a)).
Davis contends the trial court erred by imposing an illegal term of commitment, failing to obtain a personal waiver of his right to be present at the commitment hearing, and failing to hold a hearing on his Marsden[2] motion requesting different counsel be appointed to represent him. We conclude there was no error and affirm the commitment orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
A complaint was filed on February 8, 2005, charging Davis with the above enumerated crimes. At a February 23 hearing, the trial court appointed a physician to examine Davis pursuant to Evidence Code section 460, apparently to ensure he was supplied with the appropriate antipsychotic medications.
At a March 9, 2005, hearing the trial court, on its own motion, suspended criminal proceedings and ordered Davis examined pursuant to section 1368 et seq.
The trial court received into evidence reports from two psychiatrists at the April 13, 2005, competency hearing. Counsel for Davis waived Davis's right to be present at the hearing and submitted the issue on the reports. The trial court found Davis was not competent and ordered criminal proceedings remain suspended pursuant to section 1368 and set a placement hearing for May 18.
Davis was present at the May 18 placement hearing. The trial court ordered Davis placed at Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to section 1370, despite Davis's request for local placement. Criminal proceedings remained suspended pursuant to section 1368. Davis also filed a Marsden motion on that day. No hearing was held on the Marsden motion.
DISCUSSION
Davis does not challenge the decision to suspend criminal proceedings or his placement. Instead, he focuses on what he perceives to be three procedural irregularities in the proceedings.
The first perceived irregularity is a claim that the trial court imposed a period of commitment of 12 years, which exceeds the three-year maximum period of commitment specified in section 1370, subdivision (c)(1). The record does not support this contention.
There is nothing in the reporter's transcript that makes any reference to a 12-year period of commitment. Under the heading of â€