|
HY have there been so many people SINCE THE 1970s [when the
technology was developed] who have claimed that they were implanted?
Are ALL of them 'crazy' ?
+++++++++++++++++++++
Counsel also disclosed that in an earlier proceeding [***11] at which
she represented appellant he wanted to call various public figures,
including the governor, because "[he] seemed interested to use the
case as a forum, I believe, a delusional case. [He claimed] [somebody]
implanted something in his brain, transmitting messages and making him
do things, et cetera."
~~~~~~~~~~
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT L. BURNETT, Defendant
and Appellant. In re ROBERT L. BURNETT on Habeas Corpus
Nos. A027817, A028806
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two
188 Cal. App. 3d 1314; 234 Cal. Rptr. 67; 1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1323
January 27, 1987
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]
Superior Court of Marin County, No. 7695, Louis H. Burke, Judge. *
* Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court sitting under
assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.
DISPOSITION: Because in the present case appellant's confinement in a
state mental facility provided legal reason to doubt his competence to
waive counsel at the time he was permitted to do so, and because
psychiatric evidence relative to this question was not obtained, we
are compelled to reverse the judgment and remand for another
proceeding consistent with the views set forth in this opinion. In
view of the result reached on appeal, the writ of habeas corpus is
denied.
SUMMARY:
CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS SUMMARY
In a proceeding pursuant to Pen. Code, 1026.2, for restoration of
sanity, the trial court granted the People's motion for a directed
verdict and ordered defendant returned to the state hospital for
further care and treatment. During the proceeding, defendant waived
his right to counsel and elected to represent himself. (Superior Court
of Marin County, No. 7695, Louis H. Burke, Judge. *)
* Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court sitting under
assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, and denied defendant's writ
of habeas corpus. It held that, in the absence of any judicial
consideration of psychiatric evidence bearing on the question, it was
reversible error to have determined that defendant was competent to
waive counsel. (Opinion by Kline, P. J., with Rouse and Smith, JJ.,
concurring.)
HEADNOTES:
CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES
Classified to California Digest of Official Reports, 3d Series
(1) Criminal Law 87--Rights of Accused--Aid of
Counsel--Self-representation--Nature of Right. --A defendant in a
state criminal proceeding has a federal constitutional right to
represent himself when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do
so.
(2) Criminal Law 96--Rights of Accused--Aid of
Counsel--Waiver--Determining Competency--Psychiatric Evaluation.
--Whenever a trial court has doubt as to the competence of a defendant
to exercise the right of self-representation, the court must undertake
an exceedingly careful inquiry into the subject, ordinarily by
ordering a psychiatric evaluation.
(3a) (3b) (3c) Criminal Law 96--Rights of Accused--Aid of
Counsel--Waiver--Determining Competency--Proceeding for Restoration of
Sanity. --Where the person whose competence is in question is confined
in a mental facility pursuant to judicial decree and the state
maintains that such confinement should continue or be extended because
that person continues to suffer a mental disability, mental competence
to waive counsel is in doubt as a matter of law and such person cannot
be found competent to represent himself or herself without judicial
consideration of psychiatric evidence bearing upon the question. Thus,
in a proceeding pursuant to Pen. Code, 1026.2, for restoration of
sanity, the determination of the trial court that defendant was
competent to waive counsel, which was made without the benefit of any
psychiatric evidence, constituted per se reversible error.
(4) Criminal Law 96--Rights of Accused--Aid of
Counsel--Waiver--Determining Competency. --The Penal Code uses the
words "insane," "insanity," and "mental competence" in different
senses, and insanity that demands that a person be confined in a state
hospital is not necessarily the same insanity that bars the
prosecution of that person for the commission of a felony or renders
him incompetent to waive counsel. However, since the standard for
determining competence to stand trial is lower than the standard for
determining competence to waive counsel, the fact that a person has
been found mentally competent to stand trial with the assistance of
counsel (or possesses a statutory right to participate in a judicial
hearing on the question whether his sanity should be restored) does
not necessarily mean he is competent to waive the right to counsel and
proceed to trial unassisted.
(5) Criminal Law 96--Rights of Accused--Aid of
Counsel--Waiver--Determining Competency--Psychiatric Evidence. --Where
a trial court's doubt about a person's mental competence to waive
counsel is based upon a history of mental illness or irrational
behavior directly observed in the courtroom, or any other discernible
facts that would give rise to any doubt respecting the defendant's
mental capacity, the court cannot properly determine that such a
person is competent to exercise the right asserted without first
obtaining psychiatric evidence.
(6) Criminal Law 96--Rights of Accused--Aid of
Counsel--Waiver--Determining Competency. --Though waiver of a
constitutional right by a person with seemingly limited mental ability
must be strictly scrutinized, such a right clearly cannot be
conditioned simply on the intelligence level or good judgment of the
person who seeks to exercise it. The incompetence that warrants denial
of the constitutional right of self-representation must therefore
consist of considerably more than unintelligence or foolhardiness and
do far more than merely render the accused less effective than
counsel.
(7) Criminal Law 96--Rights of Accused--Aid of
Counsel--Waiver--Determining Competency--Ability to Present Defense.
--In addition to an appreciation of the risks run by any accused
person who exercises the right of self-representation, which is the
threshhold consideration, competence to waive counsel also includes an
array of basic cognitive and communicative skills relating to the
presentation of a defense to criminal charges. Such skills are present
where the accused possesses a reasonably accurate awareness of the
situation, including not simply an appreciation of the charges against
him and the range and nature of possible penalties but also his own
physical or mental infirmities, if any; is able to understand and
|
| |
| |
|
