THE PEOPLE v. GARCIA,
Trial court was not required to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the question of defendant's competence where doubt as to competence was expressed by defense counsel whom defendant discharged in order to represent himself, but not by the judge, and there was no substantial evidence of incompetence, given defendant's ability to identify the charges against him in his opening statement, to argue motions with some degree of success, to understand the concept that issues must be argued in the trial court in order to be preserved for appeal, to correct the court with regard to a sentencing allegation, to request a "jury with twelve," and to cross examine witnesses; and given the opinion of court appointed expert that defendant was competent. Trial court did not violate defendant's right to due process by permitting him to represent himself where there was substantial evidence that defendant was competent to stand trial, had the ability to consult with a lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and had a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance by not insisting upon a full evidentiary competency hearing, by not obtaining an independent psychiatric examination, or by not subpoenaing witnesses and medical records pertaining to defendant's mental health history; counsel acted within professional norms when he accepted the opinion of the court appointed psychiatrist that defendant's behavior was not indicative of mental incompetence. Imposition of upper prison term did not violate Sixth Amendment right to jury trial where defendant's record of numerous, increasingly serious convictions and parole violations was an aggravating circumstance that warranted imposition of the upper term.
Comments on THE PEOPLE v. GARCIA,