From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Waiton

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION 4
Aug 24, 2017
A145228 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2017)

Opinion

A145228

08-24-2017

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS DAVID WAITON, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC190702A)

Appellant Thomas David Waiton appeals from a Marin County Superior Court order finding him incompetent to stand trial and committing him to Napa State Hospital pursuant to Penal Code section 1370.

All future statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated. --------

I. BACKGROUND

After a preliminary hearing, Waiton was charged by information with making criminal threats (a felony) and exhibiting a deadly weapon (a misdemeanor) in violation of section 422 and section 417, subdivision (a)(1), respectively. On November 18, 2014, Waiton's appointed attorney declared a doubt as to Waiton's competency to stand trial. Waiton made a motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) seeking appointment of a different attorney. After an in camera hearing, the trial court granted Waiton's motion and appointed a second attorney to represent him.

On January 6, 2015, Waiton's second attorney declared a doubt as to Waiton's competency to stand trial. Again, Waiton made a Marsden motion. The trial court held another in camera hearing and denied this second Marsden motion. The trial court then, pursuant to section 1368, suspended criminal proceedings and appointed two psychologists to evaluate Waiton's competency. Waiton refused to speak to either psychologist.

On March 16, 2015, counsel for both parties, having waived a jury trial, submitted the issue of Waiton's competency to the trial court for decision. Counsel for Waiton urged the court to find Waiton incompetent to stand trial. Based on the reports submitted by the psychologists and the court's observations of Waiton, the court found Waiton incompetent because he was unable to assist his attorney in a rational manner. The trial court ordered the community program director (CONREP) to prepare a report recommending appropriate placement for Waiton. Based on CONREP's recommendation, the trial court on May 12, 2015 ordered Waiton committed to Napa State Hospital for competency restoration.

On May 13, 2015, Waiton filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's competency finding and commitment to Napa State Hospital.

While this appeal was pending, the Napa State Hospital certified that Waiton had been restored to competency. On August 18, 2015, the trial court found Waiton competent and reinstated criminal proceedings. On September 29, 2015, Waiton pleaded guilty to attempted false imprisonment (Pen. Code, §§ 236, 664), a felony, and exhibiting a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(1)), a misdemeanor. He was sentenced to serve 18 months in the county jail.

Waiton's counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel also noted that, in light of Waiton's restoration to competency, this appeal may be moot and expressed no opposition to dismissal of the appeal on that ground. Counsel declared Waiton was notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal, and that an independent review under Wende was being requested instead. Counsel sent Waiton a copy of his Wende brief. Waiton was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court's attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by Waiton personally.

II. DISCUSSION

An order adjudicating a criminal defendant incompetent to stand trial and committing him to the state hospital is appealable as a final judgment in a special proceeding. (People v. Fields (1965) 62 Cal.2d 538, 542.) Once a defendant is found to have been restored to competency and criminal proceedings are reinstated, however, the appeal from the incompetency finding and commitment becomes moot. (People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742, 743-744 (Lindsey).)

" ' "[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed." ' " (People v. Delong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486, quoting 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 642, p. 669.) As the court held in Lindsey, when a defendant is found to be mentally competent after he appeals an earlier finding of mental incompetency, a successful appeal of the earlier mental incompetency finding will no longer afford any meaningful relief, and the appeal accordingly becomes moot. (Lindsey, supra, 20 Cal.App.3d at pp. 744-745.)

In the present case, Waiton appeals from the trial court's order finding him incompetent and committing him to Napa State Hospital. In its order, the trial court determined that, as of March 16, 2015, Waiton was not competent to stand trial. On August 18, 2015, however, the trial court found Waiton had been restored to competency. The March 16, 2015 finding imposes no disadvantageous collateral consequences on Waiton; it caused a temporary delay in the disposition of his criminal case while his competency was being restored. If in the future his competency is again placed at issue, it will be his competency as of that future date—not his competency in March 2015—that will be at issue. And, of course, he will have had an intervening finding of competency to offset the March 2015 determination. Because no meaningful relief can be effectuated through a review of the March 2015 incompetency finding, this appeal is moot. (Lindsey, supra, 20 Cal.App.3d at pp. 744-745.)

III. DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

/s/_________

Kennedy, J. We concur: /s/_________
Rivera, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Streeter, J.


Summaries of

People v. Waiton

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION 4
Aug 24, 2017
A145228 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2017)
Case details for

People v. Waiton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS DAVID WAITON, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION 4

Date published: Aug 24, 2017

Citations

A145228 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2017)