On Monday, Martinez stipulated to the findings in a report authored by a psychiatrist who examined Millete. Based on that report, San Diego Superior Court Judge Cindy Davis found that Millete is mentally competent.
^^rsbm
IMO, the defense attorney stipulating to the findings in the psych report means that they did not want to discuss or challenge any of the details on the Court record.
They did not want whatever Ms. Martinez may have wanted to challenge from the psych report entered in the record during Monday's hearing.
Instead, today the Court reinstated the proceedings, and the defense essentially waived a competency hearing where they would have the burden to prove LM incompetent (not beyond a reasonable doubt but by a “
preponderance of the evidence").
And according to CA Statute, once the Court reinstates the criminal proceedings, the PH must be commenced within 10 days of reinstatement:
(A) If criminal proceedings were suspended before the preliminary hearing had been conducted, the preliminary hearing must be commenced within 10 days of the reinstatement of the criminal proceedings, as provided in Penal Code section 859b.
Personally, it seems I'm constantly left feeling unsettled about one CA statute after another, and this decision to reinstate the proceedings after only one opinion is no exception!
To be clear, I do not wish to see any additional delay in obtaining justice for Maya, and although I truly believe LM understands the general nature of the charges against him and that he has sufficient present ability to assist his lawyer with the defense presented (i.e., competent to stand trial), I also know that defendants like LM especially -- seldom waive or stipulate to the report without requesting a second opinion!
I think we have to ask why LW isn't requesting a second evaluation-- by his own expert.
This brings up my next question about LM's defense attorney's strategy:
Is it the defense's plan to move forward with the preliminary hearing within 10 days, go to trial, and after LM is convicted of disappearing Maya, appeal the verdict based on the single competency evaluation?
For example, California law does say that a defendant can:
- appeal a competency determination, and
- this appeal can come at different stages of a criminal case.
An accused can appeal if:
- a judge decides not to hold a competency hearing, or
- a judge or jury wrongly concludes that the defendant is competent to stand trial.
A decision that the accused was competent, though, can only be appealed
after a criminal trial. Further, this appeal can only be made if:
- the defendant is found guilty, and
- he or she appeals the conviction generally.
People v. Mickle (1991) 54 Cal.3d 140.
In other words, I want LM to be convicted and sentenced without the benefit of an appeal over a technicality. It just seems so obvious to me. MOO