Does a failure to appoint a regional director constitute harmless error?

That in a specific instance where it was required, the failure to appoint the regional center director constituted harmless error, does not excuse courts from prospectively appointing the regional center director to evaluate defendants in appropriate cases, as mandated by statute. Harmless error analysis involves an inquiry as to whether the departure from what the law requires actually prejudices or tends to prejudice the defendant's substantial rights. (Pen. Code, 1404.) It does not justify a prospective course of action that violates a defendant's rights. (See People v. Lightsey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 668, 693 [harmless error rule is to be applied when reviewing a judgment; it is not a "license for the trial court in the first instance to ignore or contravene the provisions of the Penal Code so long as the court believes its actions will not prejudice the defendant"].)