Opinion
E052306 Super.Ct.No. FSB1001877
08-02-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT DARRELL JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kyle S. Brodie, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Robert Darrell Johnson appeals from a trial court order declaring him not presently competent to stand trial. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 10, 2010, defendant was charged with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) ) and personal use of a knife during the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b) (1)). It was further alleged the offense is a serious felony within the meaning of section 1192.7, subd. (c)(23).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
On May 11, 2010, at defendant's arraignment, the court declared a doubt as to defendant's competency to stand trial, suspended proceedings, and appointed a medical doctor for an evaluation of defendant's condition. The defense also retained a doctor to perform a psychological evaluation of defendant and submitted a report for the court's consideration. Both reports concluded defendant was incompetent to stand trial.
Based on a review of police reports and other available information, one of the psychological evaluations indicated witnesses have said defendant held a bus driver with his left hand and used his right hand to stab the driver in the stomach area. The bus crashed into a tree before anyone could aid the victim. Defendant then ran out the door of the bus toward a bank. Witnesses inside the bank said defendant walked into the bank, paced back and forth, and said something about the FBI. He threw the knife down onto the floor, sat in a chair holding his head with his hands, and began talking to himself. He then left the bank and went to a nearby grocery store, where he was heard mumbling about how he stabbed a bus driver. He got down on the floor, began doing pushups, and then laid on his back. According to witnesses, defendant also made a number of spontaneous statements about his involvement in the offense. Defendant was handcuffed without incident by store employees and held there until police arrived. He also made a number of spontaneous statements to the responding officer about stabbing the bus driver. The bus driver did not survive.
On September 3, 2010, counsel stipulated the court could determine defendant's competence based on the doctors' reports, and the court found defendant was mentally incompetent to stand trial. In addition, the court authorized the involuntary use of antipsychotic medications as necessary if defendant withdraws his consent to treatment as prescribed.
On October 5, 2010, defendant was committed to Patton State Hospital; the hospital was directed to make periodic reports to the court regarding defendant's progress.
DISCUSSION
On November 17, 2010, defendant filed a notice of appeal indicating he wished to challenge the court's order committing him to Patton State Hospital. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth the facts and procedural history, raising no specific issues, and requesting that this court conduct an independent review of the record.
On April 21, 2011, we offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief on July 7, 2011, based on "the double jeopardy law." The claim in defendant's supplemental brief is that double jeopardy principles were violated because he was arrested on May 7, 2008, for stabbing the bus driver, was released from custody after being shot with a "tranquilizer dart," stabbed the same bus driver a second time on May 7, 2010, and was once again arrested.
Even if it could be shown the allegations in defendant's supplemental brief are true, there would be no violation of double jeopardy principles. "The double jeopardy clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 15, of the California Constitution provide that a person may not be twice placed 'in jeopardy' for the 'same offense.' 'The double jeopardy bar protects against a second prosecution for the same offense following an acquittal or conviction, and also protects against multiple punishment for the same offense. [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Anderson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 92, 103-104.)
Based on the foregoing, the double jeopardy clause would not be implicated by the allegations defendant has presented. Defendant claims he committed two separate crimes on two separate dates, and the Double Jeopardy clause only protects against a second prosecution for the same offense. In addition, the record before us indicates defendant has not yet been acquitted or convicted of any offense or punished for any offense, because he has been found incompetent to stand trial. The Double Jeopardy clause is only implicated following an acquittal or conviction and when multiple punishments have been imposed for same offense.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RICHLI
Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.