Houser

During a trial on multiple counts of sexual offenses against a child, defense counsel informed the court that he had a doubt as to defendant and appellant Earl Lewis Houser, Jr.'s mental competence to stand trial. The trial court appointed a psychologist to assess defendant's mental competence within the meaning of Penal Code section 1367, subdivision (a), 1 and to advise the court whether there was substantial evidence that defendant was not competent to stand trial. Following a hearing at which the psychologist testified and was cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defense, the trial court concluded that defendant was mentally competent to stand trial. The trial resumed and defendant was convicted on all counts.

Although defendant's briefing addresses the question whether the court's ruling that defendant was mentally competent was supported by substantial evidence, we *760 conclude, based on California Supreme Court opinions beginning with People v. Pennington (1967) 66 Cal.2d 508 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 374 , 426 P.2d 942 ( Pennington ), that the issue before the trial court at that juncture was whether the expert's testimony was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to…