Hays

On appeal from an order revoking probation, the issue is whether the defendant’s probation was revoked without a proper hearing and determination of his mental competence pursuant to sections 1367, 1368, and 1369 of the Penal Code. Defendant contends there was substantial evidence of doubt as to his mental competence and, therefore, the trial court erred in denying his right to a jury trial to determine his mental competence. (Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 815 , 86 S.Ct. 836 ]; People v. Laudermilk (1967) 67 Cal.2d 272 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 644 , 431 P.2d 228 ]; People v. Pennington (1967) 66 Cal.2d 508 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 374 , 426 P.2d 942 ]; People v. Westbrook (1964) 62 Cal.2d 197 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 800 , 397 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Humphrey (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 32 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 74 ].)

The record shows that a hearing on a motion to revoke the defendant’s probation was set for June 3, 1975. At the commencement of that hearing defendant’s counsel told the court that in his opinion the defendant was unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and was unable to cooperate with counsel. Defense counsel requested that the court appoint a psychiatrist…