Opinion
A168247
07-27-2023
ADAM JETER, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. Nos. 23002806 & 23002805
BY THE COURT:
Petitioner, a criminal defendant who has been declared mentally incompetent to stand trial, seeks a writ of mandate directing respondent San Francisco County Superior Court to vacate its order of May 17, 2023, authorizing the administration of involuntary psychotropic medication. Petitioner contends this order was issued without respondent making the findings required by Penal Code section 1370, subdivision (a)(2)(B) and controlling case law. The People concede the correctness of petitioner's claim. We will therefore grant the unopposed petition and issue a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance, as we previously informed the parties was possible. (See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171(Palma).)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In the criminal proceedings below, petitioner was charged in two separate cases with felony and misdemeanor offenses. After petitioner's trial counsel declared doubt about petitioner's competency to stand trial, respondent superior court conducted a preliminary hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1368.1. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, petitioner was held to answer on charges of assault and battery, but respondent suspended proceedings due to counsel's declaration of doubt.
On March 15, 2023, respondent court held proceedings pursuant to Penal Code section 1368 and ordered preparation of a competency evaluation. Among the issues to be evaluated were whether treating petitioner with psychotropic medication would be medically appropriate and likely to restore petitioner to competency. In addition, the court asked the evaluator to address "the likely effects of the medication, the expected efficacy of the medication, and possible alternative treatments."
On May 2, 2023, the evaluator submitted his report to the court. He opined that petitioner was not competent to stand trial. The evaluator recommended an appropriate regimen of antipsychotic medication. The evaluator's report did not address alternatives to involuntary psychotropic medication and did not discuss other factors required under controlling case law. (See Sell v. United States (2003) 539 U.S. 166, 179-182; see also Carter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 992, 1001 ["The trial court must conduct a hearing and may issue an order authorizing involuntary medication only if the following five factors are present: (1) the People have charged defendant with a serious crime against the person or property;
(2) involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication is substantially likely to render defendant competent to stand trial; (3) the medication is unlikely to have side effects that interfere with defendant's ability to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or assist counsel in conducting his defense in a reasonable manner; (4) less intrusive treatments are unlikely to have substantially the same results; and (5) antipsychotic medication is in defendant's best medical interest in light of his medical condition."].)
On May 17, 2023, respondent court held a hearing on the issue of involuntary psychotropic medication. Over the objection of petitioner's counsel, the court issued an order authorizing the use of involuntary psychotropic medication.
The instant petition was filed July 14, 2023.
On July 17, 2023, we requested that real party in interest file a preliminary opposition to the petition. In our request for opposition, we gave notice under Palma, supra, 36 Cal.3d 171 that we might proceed by issuing a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance. On July 24, 2023, counsel for real party filed a letter informing us that real party did not intend to file an opposition and "waive[d] issuance of an order to show cause, waive[d] argument, and stipulate[d] to the immediate issuance of the remittitur upon the Court's entering an order or judgment granting the requested relief." On July 27, 2023, counsel for real party filed a second letter clarifying that real party "stipulates to the immediate issuance of the writ in the first instance."
DISCUSSION
We may employ the accelerated procedures established in Palma, supra, 36 Cal.3d 171 "only when petitioner's entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue-for example, when such entitlement is conceded . . . or when there is an unusual urgency requiring acceleration of the normal process." (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35.) This is such a case. Where, as here, real party concedes that petitioner is entitled to relief, the need for final resolution of the issue is urgent, and no useful purpose would be served by plenary consideration of the issue, a peremptory writ in the first instance is appropriate. (See, e.g., Lief v. Superior Court (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 868, 871.)
We informed the parties that we might proceed by issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance, and we received a response from the People. They conceded that petitioner is entitled to relief." 'Having complied with the procedural prerequisites, we are authorized to issue a peremptory writ in the first instance.'" (Johnny W. v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 559, 568.)
DISPOSITION
The unopposed petition for writ of mandate is granted. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent superior court in People v. Jeter (Super. Ct. S.F. City and County, No. 23002806) to vacate its order of May 17, 2023, authorizing the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication. Respondent shall conduct any further proceedings regarding involuntary medication in conformity with the views expressed in this opinion.
This decision shall be final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(1).) Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the remittitur shall issue immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.272(c)(1), 8.490(d).)
Before: Humes, P.J., Margulies, J., and Banke, J.