Sufficient doubt that a defendant was intellectually disabled requires the appointment of  the the regional center director to determine developmental disability

People v. Lara (Cal. Ct. App., July 16, 2025, No. F086534) 2025 WL 1970660, at *1

Summary: Lara was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and sentenced to 25 years to life. During pretrial proceedings, defense counsel raised a doubt as to Lara’s competency to stand trial, so the trial court suspended criminal proceedings and appointed a psychologist for evaluation. The psychologist noted “extremely low” intelligence, confusion during two prior police interviews and during the competency evaluation, and scores below the cutoff on all three sections of a test designed to assess incompetence due to intellectual disability. Despite these findings, the psychologist concluded Lara was competent to stand trial. At the competency hearing, the parties submitted on the report without additional evidence, and the trial court found Lara competent to stand trial based on the report. Criminal proceedings resumed.

On appeal, Lara contends the trial court did not follow the procedures for determining his competency to stand trial. He argues there was sufficient evidence of intellectual disability, a type of developmental disability, to require the trial court to appoint “the director of the regional center [for the developmentally disabled] …, or the director’s designee, to examine the defendant[.]” (Pen. Code,1 § 1369, subd. (a)(2).) The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court was presented with evidence raising sufficient doubt that Lara was intellectually disabled and was compelled to appoint the regional center director, or the director’s designee, to examine Lara. The court’s failure to do so was prejudicial error, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment.

Competency proceedings

In April 2022, Lara pleaded not guilty to the criminal complaint charging him with murder. After he was held to answer after a preliminary hearing, the information was filed on May 17, 2022. Lara pleaded not guilty to the information on May 23, 2022.

On October 21, 2022, Lara’s counsel advised the trial court of a doubt regarding Lara’s competency to stand trial. Criminal proceedings were then suspended. On November 15, 2022, the court appointed Dr. Gary Longwith, a psychologist, to conduct an examination and prepare a report.

Dr. Longwith’s report stated he was a medical psychologist, clinical psychologist, and clinical psychopharmacologist. The report provided no information any training or experience he had in evaluating defendants for competency to stand trial or in working with people with developmental disabilities.

Dr. Longwith reviewed the transcripts of two interviews Lara had with police. Dr. Longwith stated Lara “was easily confused by questions, and the interrogation was at times confusing as a result. However, the [transcript] did not provide other information that suggested an altered mental status and/or behavior I deemed relevant to the PC 1368 evaluation.” As to the second interview, Dr. Longwith said, “Like the earlier interview and interrogation there was frequent confusion. However, there was no other information in the document that suggested an altered mental status and/or behavior I deemed relevant to the PC 1368 evaluation.”

The court found Lara competent to stand trial based on the report without further comment, and criminal proceedings were reinstated.

Evidence of intellectual disability

Lara contends the trial court erred by failing to appoint the regional center director to examine him despite evidence raising a sufficient doubt that he was intellectually disabled. He contends the omission was prejudicial and deprived him of his right to a fair competency trial.

Incompetent defendants and PC 1367, 1368, 1369

The criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates the due process clause of the federal and state Constitutions. (Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996) 517 U.S. 348, 354, [defendant may not be put to trial unless he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding of the facts and proceedings against him].) Section 1367 provides: “A person shall not be tried or adjudged to punishment … while that person is mentally incompetent. A defendant is mentally incompetent … if, as a result of a mental health disorder or developmental disability, the defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.” (§ 1367, subd. (a).)

Section 1368 instructs the trial court that if “a doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental competence of the defendant,” the judge shall so state on the record and “inquire of the attorney for the defendant whether, in the opinion of the attorney, the defendant is mentally competent.” (§ 1368, subd. (a).) “If counsel informs the court that they believe the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent,” or upon its own motion, “the court shall order that the question of the defendant’s mental competence is to be determined” in a hearing. (Id., subd. (b).) “[W]hen an inquiry into the present mental competence of the defendant has been commenced by the court all proceedings in the criminal prosecution shall be suspended until the question of the present mental competence of the defendant has been determined.” (Id., subd. (c).)

Appointment of director of regional center to determine if defendant has developmental disability

Section 1369 sets forth the procedures for determining the question of the defendant’s mental competency. The court must “appoint at least one licensed psychologist or psychiatrist to examine the defendant’s mental condition.” (§ 1369, subd. (a)(1).) If it is suspected the defendant has a developmental disability, the court must appoint the director of the regional center or the director’s designee to examine the defendant to determine whether he or she has a developmental disability, as defined in section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and is therefore eligible for its services and supports. (§ 1369, subd. (a)(2).) The “director or their designee shall provide the court with a written report informing the court of this determination.” (Ibid.). Regional centers provide the services to which people with developmental disabilities are entitled under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 4500–4846; Medina v. Superior Court (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1204, fn. 1, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 (Medina).) They are operated by private nonprofit community agencies.

“Developmental disability” is defined as “a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 4512, subd. (a)(1).)

The California Supreme Court has explained that section 1369’s requirement of an evaluation by the director of the regional center helps the trial court determine where the defendant should be confined pending the competency determination. It helps the court decide where the defendant should be confined if found incompetent and  “ensure[s] that a developmentally disabled defendant’s competence to stand trial is assessed by those having expertise with such disability…. ‘A valid assessment of a criminal defendant’s ability to stand trial requires a [ ] comprehensive, individualized examination of the defendant’s ability to function in a court proceeding. A reliable assessment is achieved through thorough examinations of each individual by experts experienced in development disabilities.’ A regional center … is ‘the primary agency to provide expert advice relating to the assessment, needs, and abilities of a criminal defendant with developmental disabilities.’ Court-appointed psychiatrists and psychologists may not have this expertise, because their experience may pertain to mental illness rather than developmental disability.” Other courts have recognized that developmental disability is not a form of mental disorder. The developmental disability that may result in mental incompetence is different from the mental disorder that may also have that result

Here, the trial court erred in failing to appoint the director of the regional center, or their designee, to evaluate Lara for developmental disability. Evidence raised a sufficient doubt that Lara was intellectually disabled. Dr. Longwith’s report revealed an “extremely low” IQ of 65, documented Lara’s confusion during police interviews and the competency evaluation, and showed scores below the competence cutoff on all three parts of the CAST-MR, and required that the trial court appoint the regional center director, or their designee, for evaluation. Here,  the appointment of the regional center director was not discretionary but required.

Dr. Longwith lacked the required expertise to determine whether Lara was developmentally disabled and, if so, how that disability impacted his competency to stand trial. The failure to appoint the regional center director, or their designee, deprived Lara of a fair competency trial. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for a new trial.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.