Opinion
D041854.
10-23-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DIANA NAPOLIS, Defendant and Appellant.
The People charged Diana Napolis with one count of stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)) and five counts of making criminal threats (§ 422). The court suspended criminal proceedings and ordered Napolis evaluated for competence to stand trial (§ 1368). After considering three psychological evaluations concluding that Napolis suffered from a mental disorder, one finding her delusional and one finding her to be a paranoid schizophrenic, Napoliss counsel, over Napoliss objection, waived a jury trial and submitted the matter to the court on the written reports. The court found her incompetent to stand trial and ordered her committed to Patton State Hospital. For the purpose of preserving the right to file a habeas corpus petition in the federal court, Napolis contends the trial court denied her due process of law by depriving her of a jury trial without her personal waiver and by depriving her of the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
FACTS
The Peoples case was based on information that Napolis believed conspirators, including Jennifer Love Hewitt and Steven Spielberg, placed computer chips in her brain. Napolis repeatedly tried to personally contact Hewitt and threatened to kill her.
DISCUSSION
I
In People v. Masterson (1994) 8 Cal.4th 965, 969, recognizing that a waiver of a jury in a criminal trial can be accomplished only if the defendant personally waives jury, and noting that a competency hearing is a special proceeding not a criminal trial, the Supreme Court held that, "counsel may waive a jury trial in a proceeding to determine whether the defendant is competent to stand trial on criminal charges." (Id. at p. 974.) We are bound by the Supreme Court opinion. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)
II
Napolis also contends that her counsels submission of the matter to the trial court on the written reports, over Napoliss objection, denied her the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The decision to submit an issue on written reports is a tactical decision committed to the discretion of trial counsel. (Hensley v. Crist (9th Cir. 1995) 67 F.3d 181; United States v. Rodriguez-Ramirez (9th Cir. 1985) 777 F.2d 454.) The trial court did not deprive Napolis of the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses because her counsel waived the right to call the authors of the psychological reports as witnesses.
DISPOSITION
The order finding Napolis incompetent to stand trial is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J., and NARES, J. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Penal Code.