BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2212|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2212
Author: Fuentes (D)
Amended: 8/5/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/22/10
AYES: Leno, Cogdill, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg,
Wright
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 5/6/10 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : Minors: mental competency
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill enacts a statutory provision
consistent with case law describing the process and
standards for handling incompetent minors before the
juvenile court, as specified.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/5/10 add language to expressly
provide that section applies to delinquent wards of the
court, as specified, and that if a minor is fund to be
competent, the court may proceed commensurate with its
jurisdiction.
ANALYSIS : Current law generally provides that a person
CONTINUED
AB 2212
Page
2
cannot be tried or adjudged to punishment while that person
is mentally incompetent. (Penal Code Section 1367.)
Current law provides specified procedures applicable where,
during the pendency of an action and prior to judgment, a
doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental
competence of the defendant. (Penal Code Section 1368 et
seq.)
Current case law and Rules of Court address the issue of
incompetent minors in juvenile court proceedings.
This bill enacts a new statutory provision, consistent with
existing case law, to address the issue of incompetent
minors in the juvenile court. Specifically this bill:
1. Provides that during the pendency of any juvenile
proceeding, the minor's counsel or the court may express
a doubt as to the minor's competency.
2. Provides that a "minor is incompetent to proceed if he
or she lacks sufficient present ability to consult with
counsel and assist in preparing his or her defense with
a reasonable degree of rational understanding, or lacks
a rational as well as factual understanding, of the
nature of the charges or proceedings against him or
her."
3. Provides that if "the court finds substantial evidence
raises a doubt as to the minor's competency, the
proceedings shall be suspended."
4. Provides that upon "suspension of proceedings, the court
shall order that the question of the minor's competence
be determined at a hearing. The court shall appoint an
expert to evaluate whether the minor suffers from a
mental disorder, developmental disability, developmental
immaturity, or other condition and, if so, whether the
condition or conditions impair the minor's competency.
The expert shall have expertise in child and adolescent
development, and training in the forensic evaluation of
juveniles, and shall be familiar with competency
standards and accepted criteria used in evaluating
competence. The Judicial Council shall develop and
CONTINUED
AB 2212
Page
3
adopt rules for the implementation of these
requirements."
5. Provides that if "the minor is found to be incompetent
by a preponderance of the evidence, all proceedings
shall remain suspended for a period of time that is no
longer than reasonably necessary to determine whether
there is a substantial probability that the minor will
attain competency in the foreseeable future, or the
court no longer retains jurisdiction. During this time,
the court may make orders that it deems appropriate for
services that may assist the minor in attaining
competency. Further, the court may rule on motions that
do not require the participation of the minor in the
preparation of the motions. These motions include, but
are not limited to:
Motions to dismiss.
Motions by the defense regarding a change in the
placement of the minor.
Detention hearings.
Demurrers.
This bill provides that if the minor is found to be
competent, the court may proceed commensurate with the
court's jurisdiction.
The above provisions apply to a minor who is alleged to
come within the jurisdiction of the court pursuant to
Section 601 or 602.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/6/10)
California District Attorneys Association (as proposed to
be amended)
California Public Defenders Association
National Alliance on Mental Illness
Youth Law Center
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office states, "The
problem with existing law is that it is unclear and/or
CONTINUED
AB 2212
Page
4
inconsistent as to whether there must be a finding of
mental disorder or developmental disability in order for a
court to find a minor incompetent to stand trial. The
California Court of Appeal for the Third District held that
there is no such requirement, and to proceed to trial
against a minor who is incompetent to stand trial based on
"age-related developmental disability" violates due
process. See Timothy J. v. Superior Court , 150 Cal.App.4th
847. This ruling only applies to cases filed in some parts
of California, however."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De
Leon, DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, Norby, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino,
Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,
Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,
Tran, Villines, Yamada, John A. Perez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Block, De La Torre, Gilmore,
Mendoza, Vacancy
RJG:do 8/10/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED