Kaplan

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Gerald Arnold Kaplan appeals from a judgment following a jury trial convicting him of attempted murder, felonious assault, false imprisonment by force or violence, and making a criminal threat. At the beginning of the criminal proceedings against defendant, the trial court determined defendant was competent to stand trial within the meaning of Penal Code section 1368. (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Nine months later, at the beginning of trial and after defendant had jumped from the second tier of the jail, defendant’s counsel questioned whether defendant was then competent to stand trial. The trial court concluded there was not sufficient evidence of a substantial change of circumstances or new evidence showing that the court’s earlier competency determination was no longer valid. (See People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 33 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 84 , 931 P.2d 262 ].) Defendant argues the trial court erred by failing to conduct a second competency hearing. We agree.

We hold that upon the presentation of substantial evidence showing a substantial change of circumstances or new evidence giving rise to a serious doubt about…