People v. Lingor CA1/5

DISCUSSION

Lingor contends the trial court erred by not suspending the probation revocation hearing when her counsel declared a doubt as to her competency. She argues this violated her statutory and constitutional rights. Furthermore, she asserts that the court’s failure to suspend proceedings when presented with what she claims is “substantial evidence of a doubt as to appellant’s competency ‘divested [the trial court] of jurisdiction

2 to proceed pending express determination of the competency issue.’ ” For the reasons that follow, we conclude the trial court did not err.

I. Governing Law and Standard of Review

California law presumes a defendant is competent and places on the defendant the burden of demonstrating otherwise. (§ 1369, subd. (f).) A defendant is mentally incompetent if, “as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, the defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.” (§ 1367, subd. (a).) The trial or conviction of a mentally incompetent defendant violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and…