Mental Competency Issues as Related to a Defendant’s Right to Represent Himself and to Stand Trial:  In a complicated double homicide capital case in which the California Supreme Court reversed both the guilt and penalty verdicts, and with which prosecutors and trial judges need to be familiar, the issues related to a defendant’s mental competence to (a) stand trial and (b) to represent himself were discussed in excruciating detail.  The case is People v. Wycoff (Aug. 23, 2021) __ Cal.5th __ [2021 Cal. LEXIS 5998].  In Wycoff, defendant was sentenced to death for having murdered his sister and brother-in-law for the simple reason that they were “evil people who had to die,” and that he felt like he had an obligation to society and the victims’ two children (defendant’s nephew and niece) to murder them.  In a 76-page unanimous decision, the Court ruled that “as a matter of law,” the uncontradicted opinion of an experienced mental health professional who had examined defendant on three occasions, and who concluded that defendant was not competent to stand trial, constituted substantial evidence of both his “incompetence to stand trial” and “to waive the right to counsel.”  Where such a doubt is raised as to a defendant’s mental competence, an evidentiary hearing on the issue is constitutionally mandated.  “Section 1367 of the Penal Code, incorporating the applicable constitutional standard, specifies that a person is incompetent to stand trial ‘if, as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, the defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.’” (Id., subd. (a); see Dusky v. U.S. (1960) 362 U.S. 402.) Penal Code § 1368 requires that criminal proceedings be suspended and competency proceedings be commenced any time “a doubt arises in the mind of the judge” regarding the defendant’s competence (Id., subd. (a)) and defense counsel concurs (Id., subd. (b)).  Despite the “uncontradicted opinion” of an expert in the Wycoff case that defendant was not competent, the trial court ignored the expert’s conclusions and, without seeking any further evidence on these issues, found the defendant to be competent both to represent himself and to stand trial for the simple reason that he appeared to the judge (as well as the prosecutor) to understand what was going on and to know what he was doing.  The Supreme Court ruled that this was error.  Once there was some doubt raised as to defendant’s mental competency, the trial court should have instead called a halt to the proceedings and initiated competency procedures as described in Pen. Code §§ 1368 and 1369 instead of merely rejecting the expert’s opinions and concluding on its own that defendant was good to go.  Because it failed to do so, defendant’s murder convictions and death sentence were reversed.  The Court also rejected the argument that such a hearing could be had after the fact; that to do so violated defendant’s due process rights given the fact that is now 13 years later and the Attorney General count not point to any specific evidence that would place defendant in a position comparable to his position at that time.  Moral to this story is that when in doubt, its best to stop and consider whether P.C. §§ 1377 et seq. apply.  Chances are good that they do.