{"id":194,"date":"2026-04-17T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-17T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=194"},"modified":"2026-04-17T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T12:00:00","slug":"people-v-cf-ineffective-assistance-court-reporter-antipsychotic-medication-hearing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=194","title":{"rendered":"People v. C.F. \u2014 Trial Counsel’s Failure to Request Free Court Reporter Constitutes Ineffective Assistance in Antipsychotic Medication Hearing"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
People v. C.F.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
1st District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-17<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
A174372<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Antipsychotic medication; involuntary treatment; ineffective assistance of counsel; court reporter; settled statement; appellate record<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

C.F. was admitted to Napa State Hospital after being found not guilty by reason of insanity under Penal Code section 1026. Pursuant to court order, the Department of State Hospitals had been treating C.F. with antipsychotic medication. In May 2025, the Department petitioned to renew the order authorizing involuntary treatment with antipsychotic medication.<\/p>\n

The trial court appointed counsel for C.F. and held an evidentiary hearing in June 2025. Under the trial court’s local rules, a court reporter would have been provided free of charge if requested through a one-page form. C.F.’s appointed counsel did not request a court reporter. As a result, no record was made of the hearing. C.F. refused to appear, and his counsel waived his appearance. At the hearing, the court overruled counsel’s oral objection to proceeding without a recording and denied a motion to record the hearing without prejudice. The Department called a psychiatrist who testified for about 13 minutes; the substance of that testimony does not appear in the record. The court granted the petition, finding by clear and convincing evidence that C.F. lacked capacity to refuse treatment.<\/p>\n

C.F. appealed and applied for a settled statement to substitute for the missing reporter’s transcript. The trial court denied the application, ruling that C.F. had waived his right to a recorded record by not requesting a court reporter. C.F. argued on appeal that his trial counsel’s failure to request a court reporter constituted ineffective assistance.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The First District Court of Appeal, Division Five, agreed and reversed. The court held that trial counsel’s failure to request a free court reporter for the antipsychotic medication renewal hearing constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.<\/p>\n

Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity have a constitutional right to refuse antipsychotic medication, subject only to a hearing demonstrating their incompetence to refuse treatment or their dangerousness. They are entitled to an appellate record that permits meaningful review of the trial court’s incapacity finding. Counsel’s failure to take the simple step of completing a one-page form to obtain a free court reporter eliminated any possibility of meaningful appellate review of an order authorizing involuntary medication for up to a year.<\/p>\n

The court found this failure satisfied both prongs of the Strickland ineffective assistance test. There was no rational tactical reason to forgo a free reporter, and the prejudice was self-evident: C.F. could not establish on appeal that the trial court’s incapacity finding lacked support because there was no transcript to support such a challenge. The trial court’s denial of the settled statement application compounded the prejudice.<\/p>\n

Because it was too late for C.F. to obtain a settled statement before the order would expire, the court reversed and remanded for a new hearing. The opinion underscored that involuntary medication orders implicate fundamental rights and that counsel’s procedural failures cannot be excused as harmless when they foreclose appellate review.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n