Is a defendant entitled to a competency hearing?

Defendant also argues that the exclusion of evidence violated his federal constitutional right to due process, his right to confront a witness against him, and his right to present a meaningful defense. We disagree. Routine evidentiary rulings such as this one do not implicate a criminal defendant's constitutional rights. (People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 957.) "Instead, because the trial court merely excluded some evidence that could have impeached a complaining witness and did not preclude defendant from presenting a defense, any error would be one of state evidentiary law only. [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

4. Defendant Was Not Entitled to a Competence Hearing

A defendant is presumed competent unless it is proved otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence. ( 1369, subd. (f).) As a matter of due process, the state may not try or convict a mentally incompetent defendant. (Drope v. Missouri (1975) 420 U.S. 162, 172 [43 L.Ed.2d 103, 95 S.Ct. 896]; People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 732.) Under section 1367, subdivision (a), a defendant "cannot be tried or adjudged to punishment . . . while that person is mentally incompetent." Section 1368, subdivisions (a) and (b), respectively, require the trial court to initiate proceedings in order to determine a defendant's present sanity if "a doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental competence of the defendant" or "[i]f counsel

Page 13

informs the court that he or she believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent." However, a defense counsel's expressed belief that the defendant might be mentally incompetent does not automatically trigger a section 1369 competency trial. "Counsel's assertion of a belief in a client's incompetence is entitled to some weight. But unless the court itself has declared a doubt as to the defendant's competence, and has asked for counsel's opinion on the subject, counsel's assertion that his or her client is or may be incompetent does not, in the absence of substantial evidence to that effect, require the court to hold a competency hearing." (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1033.)