Opinion
F043158.
11-4-2003
In re ANGEL U., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGEL U., Defendant and Appellant.
Waldemar D. Halka, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and John G. McLean, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT
Appellant Angel U. contends the juvenile court erroneously concluded he was mentally competent and committed a battery resulting in serious bodily injury. We agree the juvenile court erred in finding Angel competent, based on a lack of any evidence to contradict expert opinion, and will reverse the disposition.
BACKGROUND
In January 2003, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a fourth amended juvenile court petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) alleging Angel committed battery inflicting serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)), vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)), two counts of disturbing the peace by fighting (§ 415, subd. (l)), and disturbing the peace at school (§ 415.5, subd. (a)). After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found all the charged allegations true except for disturbing the peace at school. The juvenile court determined the battery inflicting serious bodily injury was a felony and ordered the probation officer to place Angel in a suitable group, foster, or relatives home for a maximum term of confinement of four years six months.
DISCUSSION
The juvenile court has inherent power to determine a minors mental competence despite the absence of a statutory framework to do so in juvenile proceedings. (In re Patrick H. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1346, 1355, citing James H. v. Superior Court (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 169, 172.)
"In James H., the Court of Appeal ruled that if the juvenile court entertains a doubt as to the minors capacity or ability to cooperate with his attorney, `then it should immediately suspend proceedings and conduct a hearing into the question of the minors present competence. In making that determination, the court may borrow from Penal Code section 1367 and use as a yardstick the definition of incompetency set forth in that section, i.e., that the minor, by reason of mental disorder or developmental disability, is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings taken against him and assist counsel in the conduct of those proceedings in a rational manner. (James H., supra, 77 Cal.App.3d at p. 176, italics added.) If, as a result of that hearing, the court finds that the minor can cooperate with counsel, the court should then reinstate the pending proceedings. (Id. at pp. 177, 178.)"
"`If, however, the court finds that the minor cannot cooperate with his counsel, resort should then be made to existing juvenile court proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 705, wherein a minor who is mentally disordered may be committed to an approved facility for care and treatment under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6550." (In re Patrick H., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355.)
Borrowing from adult competency proceedings, a minor carries the burden of proving incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 1369, subd. (f); People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 31.) The same burden applies during a hearing to restore competency. (People v. Rells (2000) 22 Cal.4th 860, 869.) "In reviewing a ... determination that a defendant is competent to proceed to trial, we give due deference to the trier of fact, and therefore view the record in the light most favorable to the verdict. However, the verdict must be supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] In determining the substantiality of the evidence, we look to the record as a whole. [Citation.] Evidence that is `"`reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value" is substantial evidence." (People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 1004.) "`Evidence is "substantial" if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendants competence to stand trial." (People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 131.)
In December 2001, the juvenile court dismissed a prior version of Angels wardship petition and placed him on informal probation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 654.2.) At a January 2002 review hearing, county probation reminded the juvenile court that Angel violated the terms of his probation contract and recommended not placing Angel back on informal probation. After the juvenile court indicated its agreement, defense counsel informed the court Angel was ready to enter a plea. The juvenile court advised Angel of the consequences of an admission; however, Angel responded that he did not understand. The juvenile court then referred 14-year-old Angel to the county for a psychological evaluation and scheduled a competency hearing.
County psychologist Ramsey Khasho, Psy.D., submitted a competency report to the juvenile court in February 2002. Dr. Khasho found Angel suffered from a psychological behavioral disorder causing "significant impairment in his academic, family, and community functioning." He also determined Angels cognitive abilities fell within the "mild retardation to borderline range." After reviewing the psychological report, the juvenile court agreed with the conclusion that Angel was incompetent to proceed and suspended further proceedings.
In August 2002, the juvenile court requested an updated psychological evaluation from Dr. Khasho. After re-evaluating Angel in September 2002, Dr. Khasho repeated many of his previous findings and noted that Angel presented only a limited understanding of the nature and process of the proceedings against him. Dr. Khasho found that Angels lack of reasoning and communication skills made it difficult for him to adequately explain himself and that he would likely be unable to cooperate with counsel in a rational manner. The psychologist concluded that Angels "current presenting deficits impair his functioning to the degree that currently renders him incompetent to participate in his legal proceedings."
At a November 2002 competency hearing, Dr. Khasho testified that Angel had improved since the first evaluation only in that he was no longer embarrassed about not understanding big words and by asking for assistance. However, Dr. Khasho added that Angels inability to communicate effectively could lead him to indicate that he understands when in fact he does not and prevent him from asking for help. Dr. Khasho described Angels score on a global level of functioning test at 50, whereas individuals who do not exhibit significant emotional or behavioral problems generally score in the 80 to 90 ranges on a 100-point scale.
At the conclusion of the competency hearing, the juvenile court explained:
"Ive been reviewing the report, and with all due respect to Dr. Khasho, I think that the minor is competent to proceed. I base that in part on my experience in the system, which is close to 35 years [of] representing people who have had deficits of every sort for 22 years. He has a behavior disorder which means that he has behavioral problems. He has mild mental retardation to a low average range. Hes in the tenth grade. He has whats called qualitative impairment communication, both receptive and expressive, and I would have to say that a significant number of people I represented over 23 years had those problems because of where they came from and what happens.
"In the number two category, part of what Dr. Khasho asked the minor about was jury and acquitted and penitentiary. With all due respect to Dr. Kasho, we dont do any of those things here, but here he says, `While the minor had minimal grasp as to some basic legal concepts he manifested some significant misunderstandings. In my opinion, thats what attorneys are for is to get it clear with somebody whats going on and what they can expect.
"Cooperate in a rational manner, the minor presented with qualitative delays in communication making it difficult for the minor to adequately explain himself.
"Just in total, I dont think that this is an incompetent individual. Its an individual who has some problems and may present some issues for the attorney to get through to them and explain to them whats going on, but that doesnt rise to the level of somebody that cant go through the system. The idea of the tenth grade, that has some significance, whatever indictment we have with the educational system, if he can get to the tenth grade youre doing pretty good. Anyway, Im finding the minor competent ...."
Angel presented substantial evidence, prepared by the County of Tulares Health and Human Services Agency, opining Angel was unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and assist counsel in the proceedings in a rational manner. Dr. Khasho based his expert psychological opinion on two separate interviews as well as other psychological, academic, and criminal records. His evaluation focused specifically on how Angels mental infirmities affected his ability to understand the proceedings and assist counsel.
In contrast, the prosecution did not present any evidence to contradict the countys evaluation and conclusions, and the prosecutions cross-examination of Dr. Khasho failed to undermine the reliability of his analysis. Instead, the juvenile court relied on its experience with other individuals evidencing behavioral problems. Moreover, the juvenile courts interaction with Angel was limited to only a few brief questions and responses. There was also no basis before the juvenile court to conclude that enrollment in a tenth grade special education class necessarily rendered Angel competent.
In summary, there was simply a complete lack of evidence from which the juvenile court could rationally reject Dr. Khashos expert psychological opinion and infer Angel was competent. Accordingly, the juvenile court should have followed the procedures set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 705 rather than continuing the delinquency proceedings. (In re Patrick H., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. The juvenile court is ordered to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and advise the appropriate authorities. --------------- Notes: Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.