Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kendrick Ruth was found guilty by a jury on October 19, 2017, of elder abuse after punching 83-year-old Luis Perez in the head on a Long Beach sidewalk, knocking him unconscious. The jury found true that Perez suffered great bodily injury and was over 70, and that Ruth had prior convictions including a serious felony assault. At the March 29, 2018 sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Ruth to 16 years in prison, imposing the middle term of three years doubled for the prior strike, plus five years for great bodily injury under section 12022.7, subdivision (c), and five years under section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
In Ruth's first appeal, another panel conditionally reversed the conviction and remanded for a mental health diversion eligibility hearing under section 1001.36, directed the trial court to consider striking the five-year serious felony enhancement, and ordered correction of the abstract of judgment to reflect a five-year term under section 368, subdivision (b)(2)(B). Following remand, Ruth underwent competency proceedings between 2020 and 2022, including treatment at Atascadero State Hospital and involuntary antipsychotic medication, before criminal proceedings were reinstated in October 2022.
Dr. Carl Osborn evaluated Ruth for diversion and found he suffers from continuous schizophrenia that played a significant role in the offense, but concluded Ruth presented an exceedingly poor risk for community-based treatment due to medication noncompliance and unprompted violence. At the April 5, 2023 remand hearing, the trial court found Ruth eligible but unsuitable for diversion, denied his Romero motion and his motion to dismiss the five-year enhancement, and resentenced him to the 16-year term.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal rejected Ruth's claim that Dr. Osborn's report required the trial court to sua sponte declare a competency doubt. The court found substantial evidence supported no new evidence or substantial change of circumstances: Ruth's schizophrenia and delusions were documented in 2020, and Dr. Osborn never opined Ruth could not understand the proceedings or assist counsel. The court distinguished People v. Rodas because Ruth had not stopped medication, communicated incoherently, or prompted a new defense doubt.
On diversion, the court held substantial evidence supported the finding that Ruth posed an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike based on his two recent unprovoked attacks causing serious bodily injury and his conviction for annoying or molesting a minor. The court rejected the forfeiture argument on the Romero motion because the full resentencing and new evidence created a new appealable ruling, but affirmed the denial on the merits, finding the trial court properly weighed Ruth's background and focused on public safety.
The court found no Apprendi error because the jury instructions (CALCRIM Nos. 3162 and 3160) required a finding that Ruth personally inflicted great bodily injury on someone 70 or older, and the true verdict necessarily encompassed that element. The court agreed that failure to order a supplemental probation report was not forfeited because rule 4.411(b) requires express joint stipulation, but found the error harmless under People v. Watson since the sentencing court was well acquainted with Ruth's history and Ruth identified no new information a report would have contained. The judgment was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A mental health diversion evaluation documenting ongoing psychosis does not automatically trigger a new competency hearing when the same symptoms were previously considered and the defendant was found competent while experiencing them.
- The absence of violent incidents during a defendant's period of incarceration does not delegitimize a trial court's concern that the defendant's two most recent crimes were dangerously close to attempted murder or murders.
- Forfeiture does not bar appellate review of a Romero motion denial when the trial court conducted a full resentencing on remand and considered new evidence that arose after the original appeal.
- Apprendi does not require a verdict form to recite every enhancement element; jury instructions that required the disputed finding can establish that the jury necessarily made it.
- Failure to order a supplemental probation report under rule 4.411(a)(2) cannot be forfeited by silence because waiver requires joint stipulation, but the error is harmless when the sentencing court already had extensive current information about the defendant.
Why It Matters
This opinion addresses the intersection of mental illness and criminal sentencing across several doctrinal areas. It clarifies that continuous schizophrenia with persistent delusions does not, without more, establish a substantial change of circumstances requiring renewed competency proceedings, reinforcing the legal distinction between mental illness and mental incompetence. The court's forfeiture analysis under rule 4.411(b) holds that Campbell is not dispositive and the plain language of rule 4.411(b) compels the conclusion that there has been no forfeiture, though the harmless-error holding limited the practical impact.
The decision also illustrates how trial courts may rely on public safety concerns to deny both mental health diversion and enhancement dismissal under section 1385, subdivision (c), even where mental illness is a recognized mitigating circumstance entitled to great weight. The Apprendi analysis confirms that jury instructions, rather than verdict form language alone, determine what facts a jury necessarily found for purposes of serious felony classification.