Jernigan

People v. Jernigan

Good Law
1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 511·110 Cal. App. 4th 131·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1004·2003 Daily Journal DAR 7445
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 3, 2003H025098California1,869 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

The trial court found defendant James Howard Jernigan incompetent to stand trial and committed him to the State Department of Mental Health. Defendant contends that he is competent. Defendant argues that because his attorney sought to prove his incompetence the trial court should have appointed a second attorney to argue in favor of competency. Defendant also contends that he was denied due process of law because he was not present at the competency hearing and there is no evidence that he personally waived his right to be there. We find no prejudicial error and affirm.

A. FACTS

Defendant was charged with failure to register as a sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 290.) The trial court assigned an attorney to represent him. A few months after she was appointed, counsel began to have doubts about her client’s mental health. Her concern was based upon a series of letters and voicemails defendant had sent to her as well as her personal observations of him during a visit at the jail. Counsel requested and was granted an order to have defendant evaluated to determine whether or not to change his plea to not guilty by reason of insanity. (§ 1017.) David F. Berke, Ph.D., interviewed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.