Santa
Clara County Superior Court Case Nos.: B1795335, C1779663,
Hon. Michele McKay McCoy Trial judge.
Attorney for Defendant and Appellant CHARLETE LEELU: Gordon
B. Scott under appointment by the Court of Appeal for
Appellant
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent THE PEOPLE: Xavier
Becerra Attorney General of California, Jeffrey M. Laurence
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Catherine A. Rivlin
Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Allan Yannow Deputy
Attorney General
DANNER, J.
Appellant
Charlete Leelu appeals an order committing her to the
Department of State Hospitals based on a finding under Penal
Code section 1368 et seq. that she was incompetent to stand
trial on criminal charges. Although Leelu has subsequently
been deemed restored to competency and has returned to the
trial court for criminal proceedings, we conclude her appeal
is not moot. We further determine that any error the trial
court may have made in failing to appoint a second mental
health expert to evaluate her competency was not prejudicial
in light of the overwhelming evidence that Leelu was not
competent to stand trial.
I.
Facts and procedural background
The
facts of Leelu's alleged crimes are not relevant to this
appeal. On December 12, 2017, Leelu was charged by complaint
with misdemeanor trespass, in violation of Penal Code section
602, subdivision (m) in docket B1795335.[1] That same day, the
trial court granted Leelu's motion to represent herself.
On
December 15, 2017, in docket C1779663, Leelu was charged by
complaint with stalking, in violation of section 646.9,
subdivision (a). On December 28, 2017, Leelu made her first
appearance in the case. Leelu told the public defender and
the trial court that she wanted to represent herself. Leelu
asserted to the court, “I know my rights. I can have
jury trial representing myself. [¶]... [¶] All
psychiatry. And they arrest me so many times in the past
couple years, but now I want to be candidate of U.S. senator.
We need to change to make a difference, as Donald Trump
said.” The trial court stated, “I had some
experience with Ms. Leelu [in another department]. She is
scheduled to be in my department on Tuesday for trial. Based
on her behavior here, which included a very aggressive and
physical demeanor in terms of speaking to the Court and
acting out at the podium, and the way she's addressing
the Court and talking about her case, I believe that I have a
doubt, and so pursuant to [section] 1368, criminal
proceedings are suspended.” Leelu stated, “I will
let all 32 million people know this judge use police to
harass me and my husband and always do things, keeping asking
money from me, no jury trial at all. And the police chief
right to hire and --.”
On
January 4, 2018, the trial court suspended proceedings
against Leelu in docket B1795335 pursuant to section 1368.
That same day, the trial court appointed a doctor to conduct
a competency evaluation of Leelu.[2]
Dr. D.
Ashley Cohen filed a report with the trial court on February
6, 2018, after having interviewed Leelu. In the report, Dr.
Cohen opined that Leelu was exhibiting symptoms of paranoid
schizophrenia and was not “able to comprehend the
nature of the legal proceedings in which she is involved, and
her psychiatric symptoms are present to such an extent that
they render her incapable of assisting counsel in pursuing a
defense in a rational manner.” Dr. Cohen stated,
“[i]t is believed that [Leelu] has been exhibiting
these disordered behaviors and thoughts for a lengthy time,
and they have gradually grown worse, in the absence of any
therapeutic intervention.”
Dr.
Cohen opined Leelu “is not rational or coherent in
conversation, she cannot express herself such that others can
understand her meaning, and she misperceives, or cannot
comprehend what others are saying to her. She is confused and
misinformed about her legal case, and gets facts intertwined
with her delusions.” For example, Leelu “insists
that her attorney is ‘The Senior Minister of the
Interior,' from Canada, and he would be defending her
except he lost his Canadian driver's license, and must
return home to get a replacement.” Dr. Cohen observed
Leelu “spoke in a rapid, pressured manner.... Much of
her speech was repetitious, involving favored paranoid themes
of individuals, government and religious organizations
planning to harm her, the police harassing her, and her
ability to discern ‘hidden' meanings and messages
that escaped the notice of everyone else. She was almost
never able to speak in a manner that was rational, coherent,
or logical. For example, when asked how she remembers things
that may be important to her in the future, she replied,
‘I have a diamond ring with an iPad inside it.'
” Leelu “strenuously denie[d] any present or past
mental health symptoms or treatment.”
On
February 15, 2018, the parties appeared before the trial
court for a determination of competency. Leelu was apparently
removed from the courtroom following statements she made to
the court and her counsel.[3] The court noted that Dr. Cohen had
opined that Leelu was not competent to stand trial. The trial
court stated, “either side, of course, can request a
second doctor or, if it's submitted on the report of Dr.
Cohen, I can refer it to the South Bay Conditional Release
Program.”
Leelu's
attorney stated that she had advised Leelu of Dr. Cohen's
opinion which, according to Leelu's attorney,
“prompted [Leelu] to address the Court in a loud, angry
voice, which can be described as yelling. And her discourse
was not linear to the conversation I was having or to any
conversation that was happening in court. But as her
appointed attorney, I do believe I have to equate that with
an objection. But I do think the Court did see evidence
before it to make a decision based on Dr. Cohen's report.
And I can submit on the report, preserve Ms. Leelu's
objection, and waive her right to have [a] jury trial, waive
her right to confront and cross-examine her accusers, her
right to present evidence in her defense, and submit the
issues of competency to the Court.”
The
prosecutor stated, “the People are also willing to
submit.” The prosecutor also asked the trial court to
instruct Leelu at the next court appearance that she should
not contact one of the victims. The trial court replied that
it would “make a note.” The court said it had
“no expectation that [Leelu] will listen or understand,
” but it would “certainly try.”
The
court stated “based on the submission, I'll
find-and my own observations-I'll find that Ms. Leelu is
not competent and she lacks capacity to make independent
decisions regarding her medications.” The trial court
referred the matter to the South Bay Conditional Release
Program. On March 2, 2018, the South Bay Conditional Release
Program submitted a report to the court stating, “there
is significant evidence that suggests [Leelu] is
inappropriate for community outpatient treatment to reach
trial competency. Currently, Ms. Leelu is so severely
decompensated that she would be unable to function and/or
cooperate with any outpatient treatment.” The report
recommended that Leelu be “committed to the Department
of State Hospitals for placement in a trial competency
program.” On March 8, 2018, the trial court conducted a
hearing and ordered Leelu committed to the Department of
State Hospitals (DSH).[4] Leelu filed in both dockets a timely
notice of appeal of the March 8 commitment order.
On July
24, 2019, Leelu's appellate counsel filed a request for
judicial notice with this court in which counsel requested we
take judicial notice of records that show that Leelu was
returned to the superior court from DSH in December 2018, and
proceedings related to both cases are currently pending in
the trial court.[5]
Leelu
argues the trial court erred in the competency hearing when
it failed to appoint a second psychiatrist or psychologist
pursuant to section 1369, subdivision (a) (hereafter section
1369(a)). Leelu acknowledges that she has completed
restoration proceedings but argues this court should not
dismiss her appeal as moot for two reasons. First, Leelu
contends that her case presents a legal issue of continuing
public interest, because the lengthy timeline of an appeal
makes it difficult to address any trial court error before
the end of a section 1368 commitment. In addition, Leelu
argues her case is not moot because she will not receive
“good time” credits under section 4019 for time
during which she was committed to DSH, and she would have
received such credits had she been confined in the county
jail. (See §§ 1375.5, 4019.) Finally, Leelu
maintains she suffered prejudice because “there is no
way to be sure of the results of a second opinion, ”
and one can have a mental illness and still be competent to
stand trial. Leelu requests that her case be reversed and
remanded for a second evaluation to determine the accuracy of
the “initial determination” that Leelu was
incompetent.
The
Attorney General contends that, because Leelu has been
restored to competency, any error the trial court may have
committed in its competency determination “has no
lingering consequences.” The Attorney General does not
address Leelu's argument about custody credits. The
Attorney General also argues that defense counsel's
statement with respect to Leelu's objection “fell
short of a statement that [Leelu] was not seeking a finding
of mental incompetence” that would trigger the
appointment of a second psychologist or psychiatrist.
Finally, the Attorney General maintains that Leelu has not
established prejudice under the standard set out in
People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836
(Watson) but provides no authority or argument why
Watson supplies the appropriate standard of
prejudice.
Leelu
replies that Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
18 (Chapman) sets out the appropriate prejudice
standard because the trial court's failure to appoint a
second evaluator violated her due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Leelu
does not cite any authority for ...