P. v. Pulley

Filed 8/30/06 P. v. Pulley CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

On appeal from a January 2005 denial of a motion for restoration of sanity, defendant Shannon Pulley challenges a commitment order following his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (Pen. Code, § 1026)^[1] made more than 10 years earlier. Pulley contends the court lacked jurisdiction to commit him because it stated a doubt as to his competency to stand trial or, alternatively, because there was substantial evidence of his incompetency when the court took his plea. Accordingly, he contends, the commitment order and all subsequent orders are void and must be reversed.

In an accompanying petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Pulley repeats these assertions and also claims his constitutional due process rights were violated when the court took his plea rather than suspend all proceedings for an incompetency hearing. Defendant is not entitled to relief on direct appeal or by habeas corpus.

BACKGROUND

The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to this appeal and petition. So, we instead review the procedural history that bears upon defendant's claim that he was incompetent to stand trial. In January 1995 defendant was arrested and charged with attempted robbery and assault with a deadly weapon or by force likely to produce great bodily injury. The information alleged one prior strike conviction and one prior serious felony.

On January 25, 1995, the trial court appointed Dr. Gloria Bentinck to examine defendant and file a written report by February 15 regarding his competency to stand trial. On February 15, 1995, the court continued the matter to March 23, 1995, for arraignment after giving defense counsel a copy of Dr. Bentinck's report.

On March 23, 1995, the parties appeared before the court for a change of plea. Defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Based on the reports of Dr. Bentinck and psychiatrist Charles Noonan, who both concluded defendant was legally insane at the time of the offense, the court found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity pursuant to section 1026. Then, after consulting with the parties, the court ensured that defendant was advised of his rights. The prosecutor explained to defendant that if he pleaded guilty by reason of insanity he would be found guilty of the underlying offense; advised him of the trial rights he would forego by pleading; and explained that, as a consequence of his plea, he could be put in a state hospital for the rest of his life. Defendant said he understood his rights, that he was not coerced to change his plea and that he still wished to plead guilty by reason of insanity. The court found defendant knowingly and willingly gave up his constitutional rights, accepted the plea, and set the matter for April 21, 1995, for a mental health evaluation report.^[2]

In a bizarrely Kafka-esque twist, the minute order does not reflect what occurred at the March 23, 1995 hearing. Rather than defendant's change of plea to not guilty by reason of insanity, that minute order purports to memorialize a proceeding where defendant was found not competent to stand trial and referred for placement. The order states that defendant waived jury trial and agreed â€