What is the test for a judge to order a second competency hearing for a defendant who has been found competent to stand trial?

"'When the accused presents substantial evidence of incompetence, due process requires that the trial court conduct a full competency hearing. [Citation.] "Evidence is 'substantial' if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant's competence to stand trial."' [Citations.] Absent substantial evidence of a defendant's incompetence, 'the decision to order such a hearing [is] left to the court's discretion.' [Citation.]" (People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 432.) "'When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial... a trial court need not

Page 6

suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it "is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence" casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding. [Citations.]' [Citations.]" (People v. Jones (1997) 15 Cal.4th 119, 150, overruled on other grounds in People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1.)

In this case, defendant was first evaluated in March 2009 by two experts who both found him competent. Approximately 13 months later, when he was in court for a probation revocation hearing, there was no new evidence or "substantial change of circumstances" which cast serious doubt on the validity of the previous finding. (People v. Jones, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 150.) As the People point out, the court's duty to conduct a competency hearing is triggered by "a doubt" in the judge's mind or a belief by defense counsel that defendant may be incompetent. ( 1368, subds. (a), (b).) Neither occurred here.