Does the fact that appellant was found incompetent after the trial not establish that he was incompetent during the trial, but does not establish he was competent at the time of trial?

Similarly, the fact that appellant was found incompetent after the trial does not establish that he was incompetent during the trial. The determination of competence is reviewed "at the time it was made, . . . and not by reference to evidence produced at a later date. [Citations.]" (Welch, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 739, italics added; see also People v. Smith (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 492, 505 [noting that "the timeframe between proceedings occurring when a defendant is presumed competent and the finding of doubt as to competency can be a very brief time period," and that "proximity of time alone is not determinative"].) The evidence that appellant was found incompetent after trial does not necessarily suggest that he was incompetent during trial.