Larry Kirk v. M. Salinas

MEMORANDUM

It was neither an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts, for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that the trial court was not required to hold a sua sponte competency hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

The record is unclear whether Dr. Hoffman’s report was ever filed with the trial court. The trial court ordered the report, but that order was withdrawn. However, even if the report were filed with the court, and the trial court had considered it, the report alone would not have necessarily raised a bona fide doubt as to Kirk’s present competency to stand trial. See Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966) (holding that “[w]here the evidence raises a bona fide doubt as to a defendant’s competence to stand trial, the judge on his own motion must impanel a jury and conduct a sanity hearing” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Defense counsel repeatedly expressed to the court that he did not doubt Kirk’s competency to stand trial. See Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 450 , 112 S.Ct. 2572 , 120 L.Ed.2d 353 (1992) (“[Djefense counsel will often have the best-informed…