When Does Incompetency Commitment End under PC 1170?

As the reader of this article perhaps already knows, a criminal defendant cannot go to trial while mentally incompetent. Penal Code § 1367(a). Although such a defendant may be involuntarily committed to a state hospital for the purpose of restoring his or her competency (see Penal Code § 1370; Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal. 5th 96, 100 – 101), the commitment may not indefinitely. Penal Code § 1370(c)(1); Jackson v. Indiana (1972) 406 U.S. 715, 720; In re Davis (1973) 8 Cal. 3d 798, 801.

The time limit of two years is the maximum amount of commitment for an incompetent in a state hospital (Penal Code § 1370(c)(1)), but when does a “commitment” end exactly? The following case ruling in Mario Rodriguez v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County from the California Supreme Court answered that question.

In December 2016, the Santa Clara County District Attorney charged Mr. Rodriguez with several felonies, each carrying a maximum sentence of more than two years imprisonment. The charged offenses included assault with a deadly weapon (Penal Code § 245(a)(1), with maximum punishment of four years in state prison); oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear (Penal Code § 287(c)(2)(A), maximum punishment of eight years); rape by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear (Penal Code §§ 261(a)(2), 264(a), maximum punishment eight years); and infliction of corporal injury on a present or former spouse, or a present or former cohabitant (Penal Code § 273.5(a), four years).

While the case was pending, the judge found Mr. Rodriguez incompetent and declared a doubt as to his competency. Proceedings were suspended and he ordered him committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH). He was then taken to Atascadero State Hospital and returned to competency several months later. He was then returned to court and proceedings recommenced.

The judge then found him incompetent again a few weeks later and declared a doubt again, suspended proceedings and ordered his to DSH. A few months later, on January 9, 2020, Atascadero State Hospital certified that Mr. Rodriguez was returned to competency and filed a certificate of competency again in the Santa Clara Superior Court.

On January 24, 2020, the Santa Clara court set May 24, 2020 as a date for a hearing under Penal Code § 1170(c)(1) on Rodriguez’s competency. The judge must determine that a defendant has been returned to competency to restart criminal proceedings.

The COVID-19 pandemic then hit and almost all court operations were suspended. On July 17, 2020, the parties returned to court and rescheduled a competency hearing under 1170(c)(1) for September 21.

The hearing was rescheduled several more times and in March, 2021, Mr. Rodriguez filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that although the DSH had timely determined that he was competent to stand trial, more than two years (789 days) had passed in incompetency proceedings from one judicial decision to commit him to the final judicial decision to approve the certificate of competency and resume proceedings. See In re Polk (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 1230, 1232 (the limit on a commitment term “applies to the aggregate of all commitments under the same charges.”).

On March 21, 2021, the Santa Clara County judge assigned to his case denied the motion, finding that the date of the certificate determines when Mr. Rodriguez was returned to competency.

Mr. Rodriguez then challenged the trial court’s ruling by filing a writ of prohibition in the Sixth Appellate District Court, raising the same argument. The court of appeal rejected Mr. Rodriguez’s argument, finding that the date of the certificate of competency controlled, regardless of whether the court subsequently approves or rejects the certificate.

Mr. Rodriguez then appealed to the California Supreme Court, which rejected the court of appeal and trial court’s reasoning and instead agreed with Mr. Rodriguez that the two-year commitment period only ends when the trial court accepts the certificate of competency.

The Supreme Court did not order the matter dismissed, however, but remanded the case for a determination of whether the good cause tolled the two-year period due to COVID-19 court restrictions.