BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
2
2
1
AB 2212 (Fuentes) 2
As Amended June 10, 2010
Hearing date: June 22, 2010
Welfare and Institutions Code
AA:mc
JUVENILE OFFENDERS:
MENTAL INCOMPETENCE
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 570 (Migden) - Ch. 265, Stats. 2005
AB 2019 (Steinberg) - 2004, died on Senate inactive
file
SB 1744 (Scott) - 2002, died in the Senate
Support: California District Attorneys Association (as proposed
to be amended); Youth Law Center;
National Alliance on Mental Illness; California Public Defenders
Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 74 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
(More)
AB 2212 (Fuentes)
PageB
SHOULD a statutory provision consistent with case law BE ENACTED
TO describE the process and standards for handling incompetent
minors before the juvenile court, as specified?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to enact a statutory provision
consistent with case law describing the process and standards
for handling incompetent minors before the juvenile court, as
specified.
Current law generally provides that a person cannot be tried or
adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally
incompetent.<1> (Penal Code 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 1368 et seq.)
Current case law and Rules of Court address the issue of
incompetent minors in juvenile court proceedings. (See Comment
3, infra.)
This bill would enact a new statutory provision, consistent with
existing case law, to address the issue of incompetent minors in
the juvenile court, as follows:
This bill would provide that during the pendency of any
juvenile proceeding, the minor's counsel or the court may
--------------------------
<1> "A defendant is mentally incompetent for purposes of this
chapter if, as a result of mental disorder or developmental
disability, the defendant is unable to understand the nature of
the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of
a defense in a rational manner." (Penal Code 1367(a).)
(More)
AB 2212 (Fuentes)
PageC
express a doubt as to the minor's competency.
This bill would provide 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."
This bill would provide that if "the court finds
substantial evidence raises a doubt as to the minor's
competency, the proceedings shall be suspended."
This bill would provide 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 adopt rules for the implementation of these
requirements."
This bill would provide 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
(More)
AB 2212 (Fuentes)
PageD
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:
(1) Motions to dismiss.
(2) Motions by the defense regarding a change in
the placement of the minor.
(3) Detention hearings.
(4) Demurrers.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
(More)
AB 2212 (Fuentes)
PageE
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to
this day, California's prisons remain severely
(More)
AB 2212 (Fuentes)
PageF
overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison
system continue to languish without constitutionally
adequate medical and mental health care.<2>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed
to hear the state's appeal in this case.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
The problem with existing law is that it is unclear
and/or 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.
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained in detail above, this bill would enact a statutory
---------------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (August 4, 2009).
(More)
AB 2212 (Fuentes)
PageG
provision consistent with case law describing the process and
standards for handling incompetent minors before the juvenile
court, as specified.
3. Existing Case Law; California Rules of Court
This bill appears to be consistent with existing case law and
rules of court on the issue of how courts must handle issues
involving the competency of a minor subject to a delinquency
petition. Current statutory law provides procedures to evaluate
the legal competency of adults in criminal proceedings, but
provides no comparable provisions for minors in the juvenile
system. For several years, appellate courts have attempted to
deal with this gap by cobbling together provisions of the
juvenile law, the Penal Code and the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act
(WIC 5000 et seq.). As the Legislature considers this bill,
authority based on United State Supreme Court decisional law,
several California appellate court cases, and a Rule of Court
inform the status of current law as it applies to minors before
the juvenile court for whom competency may be an issue.
"It is well established that the criminal trial of an
incompetent defendant violates the due process clause of the
state and federal Constitutions. . . . The standard for
determining a defendant's competency to stand trial was set
forth in ( Dusky v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 402). Under
that standard, the inquiry is whether the defendant 'has
sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a
reasonable degree of rational understanding-and whether he has a
rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
against him.' Subsequent to Dusky, the high court extended the
rights of due process to juvenile delinquency proceedings . . .
. " ( Timothy J. v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 847,
877 (some citations omitted).)
In 2002, this Committee considered another measure which sought
to address the issue of minor incompetence.<3> The following
analysis described the uncertainty of the law at that time:
---------------------------
<3> SB 1477 (Scott) (2001-2002 legislative session) - died in
the Senate.
(More)
AB 2212 (Fuentes)
PageH
. . . (I)ncompetence to stand trial is not the
same mental state as grave disability or
dangerousness, the mental state which may result
in treatment under the Lanterman-Petris-Short
(LPS) Act. ( Conservatorship of Moore (1986) 185
Cal.App.3d 718, 732; Hale v. Superior Court (1975)
15 Cal.3d 221, 225.) The Legislature has
specifically provided that, whether adult or
juvenile, a person committed under the LPS Act has
a right to proceed to trial or adjudication
despite that grave disability or dangerousness,
unless a finding is made by medical authorities
that such proceedings would be detrimental to the
person's well being. (Pen. Code 4011.6; see
People v. Vass (1988) 196 Cal.App.3d Supp. 13,
17.) Consequently, a person who is incompetent
should receive treatment with criminal proceedings
suspended only until such time as the person is
competent; a person who is gravely disabled but
not incompetent should not usually have criminal
proceedings suspended at all.
The first case to consider the problem of the
absence of statutes applicable to incompetent minors
was James H. v. Superior Court , supra , 77 Cal.App.3d
169. In that case the court held that if a juvenile
was found to be incompetent, the juvenile court
should suspend proceedings "resort should then be
made to existing juvenile court proceedings under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 705. . . .
However, section 705 merely invokes Welfare and
Institutions Code section 6550 and Penal Code
section 4011.6, both of which concern proceedings
under the LPS Act . Moreover, section 6550 is
applicable only after a finding of wardship; it is
not applicable prior to adjudication. . . . As a
result of the James H. decision, a minor could have
proceedings suspended and delayed if the minor was
gravely disabled, even if the minor was not
(More)
AB 2212 (Fuentes)
PageI
incompetent. Moreover, despite the fact that
proceedings would be suspended, no hearing would
ever be conducted on the question of the minor's
competency.
(More)
The next case to consider the issue was In re Mary T.
(1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 38. In that case, the point
was made that an adult could not be involuntarily
treated for incompetence without the right to an
initial finding of probable cause to believe the
person had committed a criminal offense. The
response of the Mary T. court was to find that a
juvenile is not being treated for incompetence, but
for grave disability under the LPS Act, which could
have been done in the absence of any juvenile court
proceedings at all. Again, the Mary T. court did not
appear to appreciate the significant differences
between competency and grave disability, and thus did
not consider the problem which arises if a juvenile
is not gravely disabled, but is incompetent, in which
case either there is no treatment for incompetence,
or there is treatment for incompetence without a
finding of probable cause. The converse problem,
which arises if the juvenile is gravely disabled, but
is not incompetent, and thus should be afforded a
prompt trial, is also not recognized by the Mary T.
court. Again, juvenile proceedings could be
suspended and the minor never be given a hearing on
the issue of competence.
The latest case to consider the issue is In re
Patrick H. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1346. In that case,
a juvenile court found a minor to be incompetent. . .
. The juvenile court then purported to commit the
minor for treatment under the competency provisions
relating to adults . (Pen. Code 1370.) Thereafter,
the minor was also found to be gravely disabled, and
was committed under the LPS Act. That court
attempted to graft Penal Code section 4011.6
procedures into LPS Act proceedings, holding that a
minor cannot be committed under Penal Code section
1370, but can be held under the LPS Act, but the
juvenile court "retains jurisdiction" unless it is
found that adjudication would be detrimental to his
(More)
AB 2212 (Fuentes)
PageK
well-being. This would appear to suggest that the
minor has a right to a speedy adjudication, but such
an adjudication could not take place if the minor was
incompetent.<4>
In 1999, Rule of Court 1498 was adopted in response to the James
H . decision described above. That Rule, now California Rule of
Court 5.645(d), provides:
If the court finds that there is reason to doubt that
a child who is the subject of a petition filed under
section 601 or 602 is capable of understanding the
proceedings or of cooperating with the child's
attorney, the court must stay the proceedings and
conduct a hearing regarding the child's competence.
(1)The court may appoint an expert to
examine the child to evaluate the child's capacity to
understand the proceedings and to cooperate with the
attorney.
(2)If the court finds that the child is not
capable of understanding the proceedings or of
cooperating with the attorney, the court must proceed
under section 6550 and (a)-(c) of this rule.
(3)If the court finds that the child is
capable of understanding the proceedings and of
cooperating with the attorney, the court must proceed
with the case.
In 2007, the court of appeal in Timothy J. v. Superior Court ,
held that this Rule of Court, consistent with the constitutional
---------------------------
<4> Analysis: SB 1744 (Scott) (2002), Prepared by John Hamilton
Scott, Deputy Public Defender, Los Angeles, March 18, 2002, and
quoted in the analysis of SB 1744 by the Senate Committee on
Public Safety, April 9, 2002 (emphasis in original).
AB 2212 (Fuentes)
PageL
requirements described above, "does not require that the minor
have a mental disorder or developmental disability before a
doubt may be raised or a finding made that he is incompetent to
stand trial." ( Timothy J. v. Superior Court , supra, 150
Cal.App. at 861.)
4. Technical Amendment
The most recent amendments to the bill inadvertently deleted the
following two provisions that should be added back into the
bill; the author intends to make this correction in Committee:
(d) If the minor is found to be competent, the court
may proceed commensurate with the court's
jurisdiction.
(e) This section applies to a minor who is alleged to
come within the jurisdiction of the court pursuant to
Section 601 or 602.
***************