What evidence supports the conclusion that appellant was competent to stand trial?

Appellant argues substantial evidence does not support the conclusion he was competent. To support his position, he advances three arguments. First, the prosecution expert examined appellant more than seven months before the trial and had "no basis" to render an opinion as to appellant's "present" competence to stand trial. Second, he contends that the defense expert presented more compelling evidence because that expert had examined appellant on more than one occasion, with the most recent one taking place one week before trial; the defense expert also opined that appellant showed less competency during the recent examination than in the prior examination. Third, he claims, with little explanation, this matter is the same as People v. Samuel (1981) 29 Cal.3d 489. We reject each contention.