P. v. Ary 4/20/09 CA1/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: A113020

Case Date: 07/30/2009

Preview:Filed 4/20/09

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES ARY, JR., Defendant and Appellant. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 5-980575-5) A113020

INTRODUCTION In People v. Ary ( 2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1016 (Ary), we determined that defendant was denied his due process right to a fair trial under Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375 (Pate) and People v. Pennington (1967) 66 Cal.2d 508, because the trial court did not, on its own motion, order a hearing under Penal Code section 13681 to examine defendants competency to stand trial despite substantial evidence that, due to his mental retardation, he was incapable of understanding the nature of the proceedings against him and of assisting in his defense. (Ary, at pp. 1020-1021.) Considering the "highly unusual nature of this case"--due to the current availability of medical evidence of appellants mental state at the time of trial produced during an inquiry into the voluntariness of his confession--we concluded that this may be the "rare case" in which a meaningful competency determination may be conducted retrospectively (id. at pp. 1028-1029), and remanded the matter to the trial court to consider whether such a hearing could be conducted (id. at pp. 1029-1030). The trial court determined such a hearing was feasible. After conducting a competency hearing, the court found that
1

All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

defendant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was incompetent to stand trial. On this appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in placing on him the burden of showing that he was incompetent when tried and convicted. We agree. As we shall explain, the presumption of competency created by the Penal Code (

Download P. v. Ary 4/20/09 CA1/2.pdf