Filed 11/20/17 P. v. Wulf CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
COREY JASON WULF,

Defendant and Appellant.
F073114

(Fresno Super. Ct. No. F14901744)


ORDER MODIFYING OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

The Clerk/Administrator is directed to strike the “AMENDED OPINION” filed on October 20, 2017.

It is hereby ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 20, 2017, be modified as follows:

1. On page 5, at the end of the first full paragraph, “!(RT 129-132)!” is deleted.
2. On page 5, before last sentence of the second full paragraph, “!(RT 122-127)!” is deleted.
3. On page 5, last line of last paragraph, “!(RT 122-127)!” is deleted.

Except for the modifications set forth, the opinion previously filed remains unchanged.

This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.
POOCHIGIAN, A.P.J.
WE CONCUR:
DETJEN, J.
FRANSON, J.

Filed 10/20/17 P. v. Wulf CA5 (original opinion)



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

COREY JASON WULF,

Defendant and Appellant.

F073114

(Super. Ct. No. F14901744)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Arlan L. Harrell, Judge.
Paul Stubb, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Kenneth N. Sokoler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-


Appellant Corey Jason Wulf stands convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, felony vandalism, and two counts of misdemeanor driving under the influence. In addition, he admitted a prior strike allegation. On appeal, Wulf contends the trial court abused its discretion by declining to suspend criminal proceedings and order a competency trial pursuant to Penal Code sections 1368 and 1369. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
After a series of incidents and accidents involving Wulf and the vehicle he was driving on January 21, 2014, Wulf was arrested by the side of the road. He appeared to be under the influence of drugs; Wulf was speaking rapidly, his speech was slurred, his comments were random and unrelated, his answers to questions were non-responsive, and he repeatedly addressed the officer by the wrong name.
At 12:59 a.m., a blood sample was taken from Wulf. Wulf’s blood alcohol level was .06 percent and methamphetamine was present at a concentration of .21 milligrams per liter. At that concentration, methamphetamine can affect the user’s thought processes, causing the user to speak and make decisions rapidly. If the user is a driver, it can cause aggressive driving and poor peripheral vision; thus, driving is impaired.
An information was filed in Fresno County charging Wulf with assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1); felony vandalism, in violation of section 594, subdivision (a); and two counts of misdemeanor driving under the influence of a drug and/or alcohol, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (f). It also was alleged that Wulf had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction and served two prior prison terms.
The People began presenting their case on June 25, 2015. The next morning, the trial court learned that a suspected controlled substance was found on Wulf before he was transported to court. After the substance was discovered, a deputy evaluated Wulf for intoxication. The trial court was informed that Wulf displayed symptoms of being under the influence and admitted that at 3:00 a.m. that morning he had ingested a substance the deputy believed was methamphetamine. The trial court excused the jury for the day and continued the proceedings to Monday, June 29.
When proceedings resumed on June 29, defense counsel informed the trial court he had doubts about Wulf’s competence to stand trial. Defense counsel asked the trial court to suspend proceedings pursuant to section 1368 and appoint a doctor to evaluate Wulf. At this point, the trial court proceeded to examine Wulf and asked him if he knew why he was there, to which Wulf replied “pretty much.”
The trial court asked Wulf about his weekend, to which Wulf replied, “Got some meds, but that’s about it. I have been trying to get some in here. I finally got them.” When asked if he knew why he was there, Wulf responded, “Because I have a trial to go to.” The trial court asked if Wulf knew what the charges against him were and Wulf responded, “DUI, vandalism, and hit and run, or something like that.” When asked if he knew why he was in the courtroom, Wulf replied, “to show I’m innocent.”
The trial court asked Wulf if he had any assistance and Wulf replied that he had “a paid attorney.” Wulf knew his attorney’s name. When asked what role the court played, Wulf stated, “I don’t know how to explain, except you are the biggest boss in here.” The judicial officer stated, “I’m the judge, you know that?” Wulf replied he knew. When asked about the “guy up here on the far end of the table” Wulf replied that he “is against me.” When asked if that man was the district attorney, Wulf replied, “I think so.”
Wulf was asked about “the folks who are not here now but ordinarily sit in those chairs over there” and Wulf knew that was the jury. The trial court asked what the job of the jury was and Wulf responded, “I kind of know what a trial is by not even being here, you know. So yeah, I know what they’re here for.”
After this examination, defense counsel argued that Wulf had demonstrated he was not competent to assist in his defense. Defense counsel explained that Wulf had been under the influence of methamphetamine three days earlier, on Friday; was in a detox cell on Saturday; and still felt lingering effects from the drug on Sunday. Defense counsel argued that Wulf was a methamphetamine addict and at one point during the prior week, had given defense counsel notes about the case that were “gibberish.”
The trial court opined that based on its questioning of Wulf, he appeared competent to stand trial and able to assist his attorney. The trial court declined to suspend proceedings.
After a jury trial, Wulf was found guilty as charged of assault with a deadly weapon, a car; felony vandalism; and two counts of misdemeanor driving under the influence. Wulf admitted the prior strike allegations.
The trial court denied Wulf’s motion to strike his prior convictions. He was sentenced to 14 years and four months in prison and awarded 1,441 days of presentence custody credit.
Wulf filed a timely notice of appeal on January 22, 2016.
DISCUSSION
Wulf’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to order a competency hearing pursuant to sections 1368 and 1369. We disagree.
Standard of Review
The trial court is in the best position to observe the defendant and its determination of whether to order a competency hearing is entitled to great deference. (People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 559-560 (Nelson).) We review the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision. (People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856, 871-872.) On review, our focus is on whether there was “substantial evidence raising a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s competence to stand trial.” (People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181, 195 (Mickel).)
Analysis
A trial court must suspend criminal proceedings and order a competency evaluation and trial whenever there is substantial evidence of a defendant’s incompetence, “that is, evidence that raises a reasonable or bona fide doubt concerning the defendant’s competence to stand trial.” (People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 401.) No such evidence was presented to the trial court. The record discloses that on the day defense counsel raised a concern about Wulf’s competence to stand trial, the trial court questioned Wulf. Wulf understood the charges against him; why he was going to court – to be tried; and understood the roles of the judge, defense attorney, and district attorney. !(RT 129-132)!
Wulf’s answers to the trial court’s questions demonstrated a rational and factual understanding of the nature of the proceedings and an understanding of the roles of the major participants. The fact that Wulf was in a detox cell two days earlier and was taking prescribed medication does not establish incompetency. (People v. Hayes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1211, 1281, fn. 30.) Nor do we view Wulf’s use of methamphetamine the week prior, when proceedings were continued because of his use of this substance, as demonstrating incompetence to stand trial. !(RT 122-127)! No court proceedings were held while Wulf was under the influence of methamphetamine and there is no evidence to suggest he was under the influence when proceedings resumed on June 29.
As for defense counsel’s statement that Wulf gave him notes the prior week that were “gibberish” and that Wulf was unable to assist in his defense, we have no doubt that Wulf temporarily was spouting gibberish and unable to assist defense counsel. The evidence showed that Wulf had taken and was under the influence of methamphetamine when that occurred, which no doubt temporarily affected his ability to assist in his defense. !(RT 122-127)! Again, there is no evidence suggesting Wulf still was under the influence of methamphetamine on June 29 and his answers to the trial court’s questions dispel such a notion. Moreover, defense counsel’s belief that a defendant may be incompetent to stand trial does not automatically require a trial court to hold a competency hearing. (People v. Sattiewhite (2014) 59 Cal.4th 446, 465.)
Defense counsel’s assertion that a defendant may be incompetent does not “in the absence of substantial evidence to that effect, require the court to hold a competency hearing.” (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1033.) The trial lasted seven days; the verdict was not returned until July 1. Had defense counsel observed any further conduct of Wulf, once trial resumed, that caused defense counsel to believe Wulf was unable to assist in his defense and incompetent to stand trial, no doubt defense counsel would have made the trial court aware of this information and asked for a competency determination; defense counsel raised no further concerns about Wulf’s competence.
The record simply does not contain “substantial evidence raising a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s competence to stand trial.” (Mickel, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 195.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order a competency hearing under sections 1368 and 1369. (Nelson, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 559-560.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.