What is the standard for determining whether a defendant is competent to stand trial?

"A defendant is incompetent to stand trial if the defendant lacks ' "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding . . . [or] a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." ' [Citations.] [] . . . The decision whether to order a competency hearing rests within the trial court's discretion, and may be disturbed upon appeal 'only where a doubt as to [mental competence] may be said to appear as a matter of law or where there is an abuse of discretion.' [Citation.] When the court is presented with 'substantial evidence of present mental incompetence,' however, the defendant is 'entitled to a section 1368 hearing as a matter of right.' [Citation.] On review, our inquiry is focused not on the subjective opinion of the trial judge, but rather on whether there was substantial evidence raising a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant's competence to stand trial." (People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181, 195 (italics added); see also People v. Wharton, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pp. 584-585 [the standard for competence to stand trial applies with respect to competence to plead guilty].)