People v. Young CA1/4

Discussion A defendant cannot be “tried or adjudged to punishment” while “mentally incompetent,” which for this purpose means that, “as a result of a mental health disorder . . ., 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).) “To be competent to stand trial, [a] defendant must have ‘ “ ‘sufficient present ability to consult with [their] lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding’ and ‘a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against [them].’ ” ’ ” (People v. Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494, 507 (Ramos).) A judge who doubts a defendant’s mental competence must suspend criminal proceedings and institute proceedings to determine competence. (§§ 1368, subd. (a), 1368.1.) The defendant is presumed competent. (§ 1369, subd. (f).) If, as here, the defendant does not claim incompetence, the judge must appoint two psychologists or psychiatrists (§ 1369, subd. (a)(1)) to evaluate, inter alia, “the nature of the defendant’s mental disorder” and how it affects their ability “to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings” and “to…