Rodriguez

DISCUSSION

Although the interplay between subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) of Penal Code

section 1370 is not entirely clear, the former is more specific and therefore under general

rules of construction governs. (See, e.g., Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto (2013)

57 Cal.4th 1193, 1200.) Because the designated evaluators concluded that there was “no

substantial likelihood” that petitioner would return to competence in the foreseeable

future, the court should have made an initial determination as to whether petitioner is

gravely disabled and a conservatorship should be initiated. (Pen. Code, § 1370,

subd. (c)(2).)

DISPOSITION

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted. Let a peremptory writ of

mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its order for a

retrial on competency, and instead to conduct further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

Due to real party in interest’s concession that relief should be granted, this opinion

shall be final forthwith.

2 Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued,

copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together…