People v. C.F. - Ineffective Assistance of Counsel - Involuntary Antipsychotic Medication

Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. C.F.

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: A174372

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (11.8K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 4/17/26
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A174372

v. (Napa County
Super. Ct. No. 25PR000108)
C.F.,
Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant C.F. appeals from a trial court order granting plaintiff
Department of State Hospitals’ (Department) petition for renewal of an order
authorizing the treatment of C.F. with antipsychotic medication. At the
evidentiary hearing on the petition, there was no court reporter because
C.F.’s trial counsel did not request one even though the court would have
provided a reporter free of charge if counsel had done so. Lacking a reporter’s
transcript, C.F. applied for a settled statement but the court denied his
application. On appeal, C.F. contends that the order granting the petition
should be reversed because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We
agree and reverse. Because it is too late for C.F. to get a settled statement
before that order expires, we remand for a new hearing.
BACKGROUND
C.F. was admitted to Napa State Hospital after being found not guilty
by reason of insanity (Pen. Code, § 1026). Pursuant to a court order, the
Department began treating C.F. with antipsychotic medication.

1
On May 21, 2025, the Department filed a verified petition to renew the
“order authorizing treatment with antipsychotic medication for” C.F.
(Petition). The trial court appointed counsel for C.F. and held an evidentiary
hearing on the Petition on June 25, 2025.
C.F.’s trial counsel did not request a court reporter before the hearing
even though he could have obtained one free of charge under the trial court’s
local rules by completing and submitting a one-page form.1 As a result, there
was no court reporter at the hearing. C.F. also refused to appear, and his
counsel waived his appearance. According to the minute order, C.F.’s counsel
orally objected “to the hearing not being recorded” and moved to have the
hearing “recorded.” The court overruled the objection and denied the motion
“without prejudice.” The court further “indicate[d] that the matter of
recording the hearings would need to be fully briefed to be reconsidered.”
The trial court then proceeded with the hearing without a court
reporter or recording. The Department called one witness, Dr. Raman
Sharma. The parties stipulated that Dr. Sharma was “an expert in the field
of [p]sychiatry,” and she testified for about 13 minutes. The record does not
include the substance of her testimony. C.F. called no witnesses. After the
close of evidence, the court granted the Petition, finding “by clear and
convincing evidence that [C.F.] lacks capacity to refuse treatment.” It then
ordered that C.F. “be involuntarily administered antipsychotic medication by

1 We grant the Department’s unopposed Motion for Judicial Notice and

take judicial notice of the court’s reporting services rule and form for
requesting a court reporter. We also grant C.F.’s unopposed Motion to
Augment and Correct the Record—which seeks to augment the record with
four documents filed in the trial court relating to his Application for
Permission to Prepare Settled Statement (Application). Finally, we deny
C.F.’s motion to strike certain factual findings in the order denying the
Application. In doing so, we express no opinion as to the propriety or validity
of those findings.
2
the” Department “for the period-of-time not to exceed one year from” June 25,
2025. C.F. timely appealed.
On December 8, 2025, C.F. filed the Application. The Department
opposed, arguing that C.F. waived his right to a settled statement. The court
agreed and denied the Application. Because C.F. “did not avail himself of . . .
a no-cost court reporter or time to present briefing in support of his request
that the [c]ourt record electronically despite the statutory prohibition,” the
court found that C.F. “waived his right to have a . . . reported record of the
proceeding.”
DISCUSSION
Defendants like C.F. who are found not guilty by reason of insanity
have a “constitutional right . . . to refuse antipsychotic medication.” (In re
Greenshields (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1287; see also In re Qawi (2004)
32 Cal.4th 1, 14–15 [a competent adult has “the right to refuse antipsychotic
drugs” under the state constitution and common law].) They are therefore
“entitled to a hearing in the trial court to determine whether” they are
“incompetent to refuse treatment or dangerous within the meaning of
Welfare and Institutions Code section 5300.” (In re Greenshields, at p. 1293.)
They are also entitled to an appellate record that permits meaningful review.
(See Waltz v. Zumwalt (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 835, 838 [“Due process includes
the right to a complete and adequate record on appeal”]; cf. People v. Young
(2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1170 [“A criminal defendant is entitled under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to an appellate record that is adequate
to permit meaningful review”].) Finally, they are entitled to effective counsel.
(See Department of Corrections v. Office of Administrative Hearings (1997) 53
Cal.App.4th 780, 790 [the right to refuse medical treatment “is rendered
meaningless if a person cannot . . . through competent assistance of counsel

3
. . . challenge a psychiatric determination that he or she is incompetent to
refuse antipsychotic medication,” italics added].) The People do not dispute
that C.F. is entitled to all of these rights.
C.F. now contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel
did not request a no-cost court reporter as provided by the trial court’s local
rules and thereby deprived him of meaningful appellate review. We agree.2
“A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing (1) of
performance that was deficient, and (2) prejudice resulting from such
deficient performance. [Citation.] The first element ‘requires a showing that
“counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.”
[Citations.]’ . . . ‘[I]f the record does not shed light on why counsel acted or
failed to act in the challenged manner, we must reject the claim on appeal
unless counsel was asked for and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation,
or there simply can be no satisfactory explanation.’ [Citation.] The
‘prejudice’ element requires a showing ‘that there is a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result would have been more
favorable to [the] defendant, i.e., a probability sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome.’ [Citation.] The burden of establishing ineffective
assistance is upon the party claiming it.” (People v. Roberts (2011) 195
Cal.App.4th 1106, 1129.)

2 Because we reverse solely on the grounds of ineffective assistance of

counsel, we do not address whether the trial court erred by denying the
Application or by failing to ensure “a verbatim record of the” hearing. We
note that our high court has granted review of Family Violence Appellate
Project v. Superior Court (order to show cause issued Feb. 19, 2025, S288176)
to determine whether the electronic recording of certain proceedings is
permitted when an official court reporter is unavailable and a litigant cannot
afford to pay a private court reporter.
4
Here, there is no satisfactory explanation for the failure of C.F.’s trial
counsel to request a no-cost court reporter for the hearing. “When counsel
has reason to anticipate that what is said at a hearing may be pertinent to a
subsequent appeal he has a duty to insure that a court reporter is present.”
(In re Christina P. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 115, 129.) And where, as here, “the
matter is as grave as” as the involuntary administration of antipsychotic
medication and the defendant is “entitled to a free transcript and a free
lawyer on appeal, there is no conceivable rational tactical purpose for trial
counsel’s failure to insure the attendance of a court reporter.” (Id. at p. 130.)
Indeed, the People offer none.
The failure of C.F.’s trial counsel to request a court reporter is also
prejudicial because it was “tantamount to a waiver of the right to appeal.”
(In re Christina P., supra, 175 Cal.App.3d at p.129.) As our high court has
explained, “the absence of a court reporter at trial court proceedings and the
resulting lack of a verbatim record of such proceedings will frequently be
fatal to a litigant’s ability to have his or her claims of trial court error
resolved on the merits by an appellate court.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5
Cal.5th 594, 608.) This is undoubtedly so here because the hearing provided
the sole evidentiary basis for the granting of the Petition and because the
trial court denied C.F.’s request for a settled statement.3
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the Petition.
We also order a new trial as requested by C.F. even though we could, in
theory, order the court to prepare a settled statement on remand. (See People
v. Cervantes (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1123 [remanding for preparation of
a new settled statement because there was no court reporter and because the

3 Because the People opposed C.F.’s request, he presumably could not

have obtained an agreed statement. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.344.)
5
original statement was inadequate].) If “a settled statement cannot be
drafted which will afford an adequate basis for appellate review, the
defendant is entitled to a new trial as a matter of due process.” (People v.
Jenkins (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d. Supp. 55, 61.) Here, the order granting the
Petition expires on June 25, 2026—in less than three months. Because the
remittitur in this case will issue no earlier than mid- to late May, as a
practical matter, there is no way for the court to prepare a settled statement
in time for us to review that order before it expires. Under these
circumstances, C.F. is entitled to a new hearing. Recognizing that the
Department may wish to renew the medication authorization order after
June 25, 2026, we note that the new hearing we order here may be combined
with the hearing on any petition to renew that order.
DISPOSITION
The June 25, 2025 order granting the Petition is reversed. The matter
is remanded for a new hearing.

CHOU, J.

WE CONCUR.

JACKSON, P. J.
SIMONS, J.

A174372/ P. v. C.F.

6
People v. C.F. (A174372)

Trial Court: Superior Court of the County of Napa

Trial Judge: Joseph Solga

Counsel: First District Appellate Project, Jonathan Soglin and
Megan Hailey-Dunsheath, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Benjamin G. Diehl and Nicolas
P. Rossenblum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

7