What is the test for requiring a trial court to hold a second competency hearing on a defendant's "bizarre" statements?

We cannot say as a matter of law that here defendant's statements in question were a "substantial change of circumstances" requiring the trial court to hold a second competency hearing. As noted above, a defendant's bizarre statements, standing alone, are not sufficient. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the statements failed to establish a substantial change of circumstances. (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 543, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677, 822 P.2d 385.)