What is the current state of the law on mental competence in criminal cases?

convicting a criminal defendant while he or she is mentally incompetent." ( People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 846, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 141 P.3d 135 ; see 1367, subd. (a); Drope v. Missouri (1975) 420 U.S. 162, 172, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103.) "A defendant is incompetent to stand trial if [he] is unable to consult with [his] attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or lacks a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against [him]." ( People v. Rodriguez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 587, 624, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 380, 319 P.3d 151.)

"The decision whether to order a competency hearing rests within the trial courts discretion, and may be disturbed upon appeal only where a doubt as to [mental competence] may be said to appear as a matter of law or where there is an abuse of discretion. (See People v. Pennington (1967) 66 Cal.2d 508, 518, 58 Cal.Rptr. 374, 426 P.2d 942....) When the court is presented with substantial evidence of present mental incompetence, however, the defendant is entitled to a section 1368 hearing as a matter of right. [Citation.] On review, our inquiry is focused not on the subjective opinion of the trial judge, but rather on whether there was substantial evidence raising a reasonable doubt concerning the defendants competence to stand trial. [Citation.] ... A trial court reversibly errs if it fails to hold a competency hearing when one is required under the substantial evidence test." (

[421 P.3d 610]

People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181, 195, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 601, 385 P.3d 796.)