CA · rules

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.130

Mental competency proceedings

activein force · 2023-05-15 – presentact-effective-date

(a) Application

The duty to initiate a competency proceeding may arise at any time before judgment, and after judgment in a proceeding to revoke probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole.

(b) Initiation of mental competency proceedings

(1) If the court has a reasonable doubt based on substantial evidence that the defendant, due to a mental disorder or developmental disability, is incapable of understanding the nature of the proceedings against them or of rationally assisting in their defense, the court must suspend criminal proceedings and commence competency proceedings.

(2) The opinion of counsel, without a statement of specific reasons supporting that opinion, does not constitute substantial evidence. The court may allow defense counsel to present their opinion regarding the defendant’s mental competency ex parte and in camera if the court finds there is reason to believe that attorney-client privileged information will be inappropriately revealed if the hearing is conducted in open court.

(1) If mental competency proceedings are initiated, criminal proceedings are suspended and may not be reinstated until the defendant is found mentally competent at a trial conducted under section 1369, by the court under section 1369(c)(1) when neither party objects to the competency report, at a hearing conducted under section 1370(a)(1)(I), or at a hearing following a certification of restoration under section 1372.

(2) Statutory requirements governing the time in which hearings must occur in the underlying criminal proceeding are tolled from the date on which criminal proceedings are suspended until the date on which criminal proceedings are reinstated. Upon reinstatement of criminal proceedings, unless waived by the defendant, all statutory time periods in which proceedings are required to occur are applicable, regardless of whether such time was waived by the defendant before the initiation of competency proceedings.

(3) The fact that criminal proceedings have been suspended and that competency proceedings have been initiated, in and of itself, is not grounds to revoke the defendant’s own recognizance status or to modify a previous bail order.

History

(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2026; previously amended effective January 1, 2018.) (Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2026: previously amended effective January 1, 2020.) (Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2026; previously amended effective January 1, 2020.) Rule 4.130 amended effective January 1. 2026; adopted effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective January 1, 2018, January 1, 2020, September 1, 2020, May 13, 2022, amended effective May 15, 2023. Advisory Committee Comment The case law interpreting Penal Code section 1367 et seq. established a procedure for judges to follow in cases in which there is a concern whether the defendant is legally competent to stand trial, but the concern does not necessarily rise to the level of a reasonable doubt based on substantial evidence. Before finding a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's competency to stand trial and initiating competency proceedings under Penal Code section 1368 et seq., the court may appoint an expert to assist the court in determining whether such a reasonable doubt exists. As noted in People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 34-36, the court may appoint an expert when it is concerned about the mental competency of the defendant, but the concern does not rise to the level of a reasonable doubt, based on substantial evidence, required by Penal Code section 1367 et seq. Should the results of this examination present substantial evidence of mental incompetency, the court must initiate competency proceedings under (b).

Provenance

Source: courts.ca.gov
Retrieved: 2026-09-14
Edition: 2026-09-14
Content hash: 414178ede8b36d2ab5a8c024e927d478cbbaae323ce3acc615cfcf5bdc19bc9c

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs