People v. Baker CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Baker argues that the trial court was required to appoint two different psychiatrists

or psychologists to evaluate his mental competency instead of only one. According to

Baker, a second examination was required by section 1369, subdivision (a), which states

that "[i]n any case where the defendant or the defendant's counsel informs the court that

the defendant is not seeking a finding of mental incompetence, the court shall appoint

two psychiatrists, licensed psychologists, or a combination thereof." (Ibid.) Baker

contends that although defense counsel did not take issue with the finding of mental

incompetency in Dr. Takamura's report, Baker himself made statements during the

3 hearing indicating that he objected to being found mentally incompetent.2 Baker argues

that his statements at the hearing amounted to "the defendant . . . inform[ing] the court

that the defendant is not seeking a finding of mental incompetence," triggering the

requirement that two different mental health professionals examine him. (§ 1369,

subd. (a).)

The People argue that the appeal should be dismissed because it is moot in light of

the subsequent finding that Baker is…