Is SB 1187 Retroactive for Competency Commitments?

The ability of even the most educated and intelligent defendants to really understand the nature and consequences of the charges he or she faces is often unclear.  Our office has represented many well-educated folks, who – as counterintuitive as it may seem, do not understand the nature and consequence of the charges they face and cannot contribute to their defense, often as a result of substance or alcohol abuse or mental illness.  Likewise, sometimes the most intelligent defendants are mentally ill, have a history of substance abuse and render themselves incompetent.

In such situations, defense counsel will be careful before declaring a doubt under Penal Code § 1368, but sometimes it is inevitable.

Defendant then becomes vulnerable to a series of consequences that some may say are straight out of a George Orwell novel.  He or she will be examined by an appointed medical professional under California Rules of Court, Rule 4.130, to examine and assess the individual’s competency to stand trial.  Sometimes, that doctor will recommend that the defendant needs antipsychotic medication to be restored to mental competency.

Sometimes, the doctor will even opine that defendant was not competent to give informed consent to be treated with antipsychotic medication.  The doctor can recommend that a judge issue an order authorizing the administration of antipsychotic medication “with or without consent.”

This sequence of events played out in Fresno County Superior Court for Mr. Ronnie Early Howell after he was arrested in 2018 for felony DUI and felony hit and run.  It was also alleged that he had suffered numerous prior felony convictions and served prior prison terms.

Howell was, at the time of his arrest, already a defendant in another pending criminal matter wherein a doubt had been declared under Penal Code § 1368.  In his felony DUI case, the public defender also declared a doubt.

Fresno Police Department