Opinion
H024935.
10-29-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER, Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 10, 2003, be modified in the following particulars:
1. On page 7, line 2, insert the following paragraph immediately after the words "would appear indicated" as the first full paragraph:
At a hearing on January 30, 2002, the court noted the receipt of Dr. Perezs report and asked if the parties would be willing to stipulate that the section 1368 matter be submitted on Dr. Perezs report and the entire case files in both cases. The prosecutor and defendants counsel indicated they would so stipulate. Defendant, who was representing himself on the misdemeanor charges, stated he would not stipulate and further stated he was not waiving his right to a jury trial on the competency hearing. He specifically informed the court he was not asking for a finding of incompetence and repeated his claim that the proceedings were an attempt to cover up the falsification of a reporters transcript. The court thereafter scheduled a hearing date for a trial setting conference.
2. On page 11, the first full paragraph shall be deleted and the following paragraph inserted in its place:
On January 3, 2002, after determining that there was substantial evidence of defendants incompetence, the trial court suspended criminal proceedings and transferred the matter to department 24 for the competency hearing. Neither defendant nor his attorney expressly told the court that defendant was not seeking a finding of mental incompetence, although defendant asserted that he objected to the proceeding as a pretense to cover up the falsification of a document by the government. On January 9, 2002, the trial court, in department 24, appointed Dr. Robert Perez to examine defendant. Defendant continued to voice his objection to the proceedings as a conspiracy to cover up government malfeasance. As stated above, when Dr. Perez attempted to interview defendant in the main jail facility, defendant refused to speak to him. On January 30, 2002, after the court had received Dr. Perezs report, defendant informed the court he "[was] not asking for a finding of incompetency." No other psychiatrist or psychologist was appointed to evaluate defendant. The reports of Dr. Echeandia, Dr. Echols and Dr. Perez were submitted to the trial court at the competency hearing without objection by defendant or his attorneys.
3. On page 11, the first two sentences of the second full paragraph beginning with the words "Assuming defendants objection" and ending with the words "his own testimony" are deleted and the following sentences are inserted in their place so that the sentences read:
Although defendant specifically informed the court he was not seeking a finding of mental incompetence, defendant may not take advantage of the failure of the court to appoint a second psychiatrist or psychologist prior to the competency hearing. First, defendant made no objection on April 2 or June 6, 2002, to the issue of his competence being submitted to the court based on the previous mental health reports along with his own testimony.
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellants petition for rehearing is denied.
PREMO, ACTING P.J. ELIA, J.