LOUIS EUGENE CRAFT v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY
Filed 6/30/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| LOUIS EUGENE CRAFT, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. | G036155 (Super. Ct. No. 03CF1362) O P I N I O N |
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Daniel J. Didier, Judge. Petition granted in part and denied in part.
Deborah A. Kwast, Public Defender, Thomas Havlena, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Kevin J. Phillips and Martin F. Schwarz, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner.
Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney, and Brian N. Gurwitz, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.
No appearance for Respondent.
* * *
Louis Eugene Craft seeks a peremptory writ of mandate challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss a felony complaint charging him with possession of heroin and misdemeanor offenses for being under the influence of heroin, possession of a hypodermic needle, and urinating in public. Craft contends his lengthy pretrial incarceration violated his right to a speedy trial under the state Constitution and infringed due process under the federal and state Constitutions. At the preliminary hearing, the trial court found Craft incompetent to stand trial and suspended criminal proceedings. The trial court concluded Craft should be committed to the state hospital for treatment but, for reasons never explained in the record, the court failed to issue the commitment and transportation order. Craft contends the ensuing 17 months he languished in jail -- without treatment for the mental health condition on which the trial court predicated suspending criminal proceedings -- requires either outright dismissal of the charges or reconsideration of his motion. For the reasons that follow, we conclude there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding Craft suffered no prejudice from the delay and, on remand, the court must weigh the prejudice against any reasons the prosecution may offer to justify the delay.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The district attorney filed the complaint against Craft on May 13, 2003, and he pleaded not guilty when arraigned on May 23, 2003. At the preliminary hearing on June 6, 2003, the public defender expressed doubts about Craft's mental competency. The trial court suspended criminal proceedings (Pen. Code, § 1368, subd. (c); all further statutory references are to this code) and appointed two experts to evaluate Craft's mental condition (§ 1369, subd. (a)).
Based on the experts' reports, the trial court on July 25, 2003, found Craft incompetent to stand trial (§ 1369). The court ordered the HCA to evaluate Craft and recommend a course of treatment (§ 1370, subd. (a)(1)(F)(2)), which the court apparently assumed would be inpatient care at the state hospital. The court's minute order states: â€
