P. v. Robinson

Filed 8/22/07 P. v. Robinson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

in and for the

Fifth Appellate District

THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the nonpublished opinion filed herein on August 9, 2007, be modified in the following particulars. (The page numbers referenced in this order are based on the pagination in the hard copy of the original opinion filed in the clerks office.)

1) Page 2: At the end of the first paragraph, modify the last sentence so that it reads as follows: On appeal, he contends he was not competent at the time of sentencing and that resumption of criminal proceedings violated his due process rights.

2) Page 4: In the last paragraph before the Discussion, modify the first, second, and third sentences to read as follows: On April 20, 2006, the date set for sentencing, the trial court reinstated proceedings. Sentencing was continued for one week. On April 27, 2006, defense counsel reiterated, etc.

3) Page 4: In the first paragraph of the Discussion, modify the first two sentences to read as follows: Robinson contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it reinstated proceedings on April 20, 2006. He contends that the evidence presented showed that he was not competent. In the third sentence, add the phrase on April 20 and between competent and at the time of his sentencing.

4) Page 5: After the second paragraph, add a new, third paragraph to read as follows:

On April 20, the parties submitted the question of Robinsons competency on the report of Dr. Schmidt. Dr. Schmidts report stated that Robinson was competent to stand trial within reason. The report confirmed that Robinson had a longstanding mental disorder requiring medication and stated that Robinsons medication needed to be reevaluated for his behavior to be acceptable in court. According to the report, Robinson was able to participate in give-and-take conversations and was aware of his legal and mental-health status. According to Dr. Schmidt, Robinson reported that his paranoid delusions intensify when he is in the courtroom. Schmidt suggested that Robinson would be more receptive and more appropriate to returning to the courtroom if on an antipsychotic medication for seven to 10 days. Despite this limitation in the doctors evaluation, the report states that Robinson knows right from wrong, demonstrates adequate insight, and has the ability to cooperate with his attorney. Thus, Dr. Schmidt stated that Robinson was marginally competent at the time of the report. The report was dated April 8 and no further evidence was presented showing a decrease in mental competency. In any event, although criminal proceedings were reinstated on April 20, sentencing was immediately continued until April 27.

5) Page 6: Modify the beginning of the fourth paragraph (what had been the third paragraph) by replacing the text at the beginning, Here, the trial court reviewed, with the following: At the beginning of the sentencing hearing, a further challenge to Robinsons competency was initiated by the defense and the court again considered Dr. Schmidts report along with the entire record .

6) Page 6: In the fourth paragraph (what had been the third paragraph), at the beginning of the second sentence, add The court also and delete the word and, immediately preceding the phrase questioned defense counsel about Robinsons behavior.

7) Page 6: At the end of the last paragraph before the Disposition, delete the last sentence beginning with The request for a and add the following: The trial courts findings of competency on April 20 and 27 are supported by the evidence.

The petition for rehearing is denied. Except for the modification set forth, the opinion previously filed remains unchanged. The modification does not alter the judgment.

________________________

Wiseman, Acting P.J.

I CONCUR:

________________________

Cornell, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.