Skip to main content

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.130 · Chapter 1. Pretrial Proceedings

Mental competency proceedings

Verbatim from the official edition

Text — As posted by the Judicial Council of California (read October 22, 2026)

(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.

(c) Effect of initiating mental competency proceedings

(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.

Notes and commentary — not rule text

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).

Source of truth

Edition
As posted by the Judicial Council of California (read October 22, 2026)
Official file
https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/four/rule4_130
Text hash
sha256 27c6c4ff458744cb1b02d87c12a2d11696524172a536bba0e241a8b502f5810b
Composed by
compose_crc.py 2026-10-22: the Judicial Council's rule pages read paragraph by paragraph; verify_crc.py's second reading of the Council's per-title PDFs finds every paragraph

BenchPath cards that rely on this text

This rule cites

Provisions in this library that the text above cites, as it prints each citation. A range cited as “ss. 61.13-61.16” links its first and last provisions.

Procedural information only. Not legal advice and not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. Confirm the current text with the official publisher before relying on it.