## Facts

- Samuel Othello Bolden, Jr. was charged with robbery, two counts of assault with intent to murder, and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon involving his father and brother.
- Criminal proceedings were suspended for a competency determination under California procedure.
- A first competency jury trial ended in a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury.
- At a second competency jury trial with new appointed counsel, two prosecution psychiatrists testified Bolden was incompetent due to delusions.
- Bolden believed his father and brother were aliens inhabiting their bodies.
- Outside the jury’s presence, counsel reported Bolden wanted to testify and wanted to be found competent, while counsel believed Bolden’s mental condition impeded cooperation for a potential insanity defense.
- Counsel presented Bolden’s testimony supporting competence and also presented a psychiatric defense expert opining Bolden was incompetent.
- After brief deliberations, the jury found Bolden incompetent, and the court committed him to Patton State Hospital.

## Issues

1. Whether Penal Code § 1368 violates due process by requiring the trial judge, upon doubt of competence, to ask defense counsel for an opinion on the defendant’s competence.
2. Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance or violated the defendant’s rights by presenting evidence of incompetence contrary to the defendant’s wish to be found competent.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order finding Bolden incompetent to stand trial and committing him for treatment.
- The court held Penal Code § 1368’s requirement that defense counsel provide an opinion on competence, when the judge has doubt, is consistent with due process.
- The court held counsel did not provide constitutionally ineffective assistance by presenting incompetency evidence despite Bolden’s stated desire to be found competent.

## Legal Principles

- Competency procedures are protective measures designed to prevent trial of defendants who cannot understand proceedings or assist counsel.
- A statutory requirement that defense counsel state an opinion on competence, when the court has doubt, is a permissible safeguard and fits counsel’s role as an officer of the court.
- When genuine doubt exists about competence, a defendant does not have an absolute right to force a finding of competence or to prevent counsel from raising or supporting incompetence.
- Presenting incompetency evidence over a defendant’s objection can be a reasonable professional decision aimed at protecting the defendant’s rights and the fairness of proceedings, and does not by itself establish ineffective assistance.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the competency order, concluding that requiring defense counsel’s input under Penal Code § 1368 satisfies due process and that counsel may present evidence supporting incompetence, even contrary to the defendant’s wishes, without rendering ineffective assistance.


People v. Bolden, 99 Cal. App. 3d 375 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)