By Leila Katibah
SANTA BARBARA, CA – Here in Santa Barbara County Superior Court Monday, during a warrant arraignment, the accused, who is currently in custody for violating the terms of his parole, was deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial.
Upon stating the accused is mentally unfit for trial, the accused interrupted, “I disagree with that.”
Judge Raimundo Montes de Oca asked for details, and Deputy Public Defender Mary M. Huft responded, “He is unable to talk to me.”
The accused interjected with his disapproval again “about the facts of the case,” but DPD Huft continued and was interrupted again.
“I disagree. I’m sorry, I just don’t agree with what you’re saying and the way you’re handling this, and I’m not happy,” argued the accused, who is currently in custody for misdemeanor charges of possession of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia.
“I’d like to have somebody else as a replacement for counsel. Thank you,” the accused continued.
Judge Montes de Oca interjected, telling him, “I don’t want you to talk to me about the case.”
Judge de Oca asked if he recalled the events that occurred in July, August, and September when he allegedly committed misdemeanor offenses of possessing drugs.
“Do you remember events like that happening in the last several months?” asked Judge de Oca.
“Yes, but I didn’t have possession of drugs,” the accused replied. The judge repeated again that he is not asking about the details of the case, but if he remembers those events, and is willing to talk to an attorney about it, not necessarily DPD Huft.
Because the accused remembered the events and stated he was willing to talk to an attorney, Judge de Oca stated, “I don’t find sufficient evidence to declare a doubt to [the accused’s] competence.”
DPD Huft notified the judge the accused “believes he is exempt from these charges as he is the most worshipful grand master of the planet Earth.”
“Maybe he believes that or not. I don’t know that’s necessarily a reason to declare a doubt. If he can converse with counsel, if he understands the charges, then it’s just a matter of perhaps the disagreement as the factual basis of his beliefs,” replied Judge de Oca.
DPD Huft then suggested that Deputy Public Defender Brian K. Mathis speak to him, to which the accused interjected, “I’m okay, I don’t like Mathis. I’ve dealt with Mathis in the past and I’m fine. I don’t want to talk to Mathis.”
Judge de Oca replied, “Okay, that’s fine,” continuing that the court will resume this case on Nov. 2, and the accused will be transported per request of DPD Huft, as his violation of parole detention ends Nov.3. 
