Opinion
F075208
02-07-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHAWN BEAVERS, Defendant and Appellant.
Conness A. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. BF166312A)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge. Conness A. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Meehan, J.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Shawn Beavers contends the trial court erred when it refused to conduct a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) after finding him not competent to stand trial pursuant to Penal Code section 1369. The People concede the error. We reverse the order committing Beavers to the state hospital for restoration of competency and remand with directions to conduct a Marsden hearing.
References to code sections are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
We provide a recitation of those facts and procedures relevant to the issue on appeal. In a complaint filed November 21, 2016, Beavers was charged with robbery and battery. The public defender was appointed to represent Beavers.
At a hearing on December 5, 2016, defense counsel declared a doubt as to Beavers's competency to stand trial, pursuant to section 1368. The trial court ordered that Beavers be evaluated and continued the matter.
A Marsden hearing was held on January 4, 2017, at which time Beavers requested substitute counsel. The trial court denied the Marsden motion "without prejudice." The trial court informed Beavers that if in the future, Beavers found "there is a problem" with defense counsel, "you have a right to bring this motion again."
At a hearing on January 25, 2017, the trial court was in receipt of two evaluations from different doctors. The doctors were of the opinion that Beavers should be found incompetent to stand trial.
Beavers asserted at the January 25, 2017, hearing that he was competent. He tried more than once to speak to the trial court, or ask a question of the trial court. Beavers told the trial court "There was a little bit of a problem communicating with [defense counsel]." In response to Beavers's attempts to talk to the trial court, the trial court informed him "[y]our attorney is going to talk for you," responded "[n]ot right now," or stated, "I don't think your attorney wants you to."
Defense counsel stated Beavers was "seeking a finding of competency," but submitted the matter on the reports. The trial court found Beavers not competent to stand trial and ordered him evaluated for placement and medication.
At the February 22, 2017, hearing to determine where Beavers would be placed while competency was restored, defense counsel notified the trial court that Beavers was requesting a Marsden hearing. The trial court replied, "I think - once he's found not competent I think he does not have a right to a Marsden." (Italics added.) Beavers subsequently attempted to talk to the trial court, stating, "But what I was hoping -" when the trial court cut him off. At no time was Beavers provided an opportunity to articulate why he was requesting a Marsden hearing.
On February 23, 2017, the order committing Beavers to the state hospital for a maximum of three years pursuant to section 1370 was filed. Beavers appealed the commitment to the state hospital.
DISCUSSION
Beavers contends the order committing him to the state hospital for restoration of competence must be reversed and the trial court be directed to hold a Marsden hearing. The People concede the trial court erred in failing to conduct a Marsden hearing.
We first note that an order finding a defendant incompetent to stand trial and committing the defendant to a state hospital until sanity is restored is appealable as a final judgment. (People v. Christiana (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1045-1046.)
The record reflects that at the February 22, 2017 hearing, defense counsel informed the trial court that Beavers was requesting a Marsden hearing. The trial court responded, "I think - once he's found not competent I think he does not have a right to a Marsden." The trial court did not allow Beavers to ask questions of the trial court, or articulate why he desired a Marsden hearing. There was no attempt to conduct any hearing at which Beavers could fully express his concerns about defense counsel and his reasons for wanting to discharge counsel.
A trial court must conduct a Marsden hearing when there is "some clear indication by the defendant, either personally or through counsel, that the defendant wants a substitute attorney." (People v. Sanchez (2011) 53 Cal.4th 80, 84.) This same principle holds true as to a defendant in a competency proceeding who expresses a desire for substitute counsel. (People v. Solorzano (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1069-1070.) We can think of no clearer indication of a defendant wanting substitute counsel than defense counsel plainly stating, as here, that Beavers wanted a Marsden hearing.
Failure to hold a Marsden hearing generally is not harmless because a defendant "might have catalogued acts and events beyond the observations of the trial judge ...." (People v. Mejia (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1087.) The test is not whether, on the record, a defendant had a meritorious claim. (Ibid.) Had Beavers been afforded an opportunity to express his concerns fully about defense counsel, he may have catalogued differences and problems that warranted a substitution of counsel. From the record before us, it is impossible to tell because Beavers was prevented from speaking and denied a hearing.
The full nature and extent of Beavers' reasons for wanting to discharge his defense counsel on February 22, 2017, are not known because he was not afforded a Marsden hearing as is required. (People v. Sanchez, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 84.) When a trial court's failure to hold a Marsden hearing is the only error, it is appropriate to reverse and remand for the limited purpose of conducting a Marsden hearing. (People v. Hill (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 646, 653-654.)
DISPOSITION
The order finding Beavers incompetent to stand trial is reversed. The matter is remanded with directions to the trial court to conduct a Marsden hearing, and, depending upon the outcome of that hearing, to exercise judicial discretion to reinstate the order, conduct a new competency hearing after appointment of substitute counsel, or proceed as otherwise allowed by law.