EXHIBIT B-3 (2.14.24) [MINUTE ORDER] Unauthorized Invocation of PC §1368 and Retroactive Justification of Prior Evaluation (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

Exhibit B-3: February 14, 2024 Minute Order — Competency Proceedings Initiated Without Lawful Basis

Unauthorized Invocation of PC §1368 and Retroactive Justification of Prior Evaluation

---

🔹 Verbatim Excerpt: Minute Order Dated February 14, 2024

> Defense counsel declares a doubt as to the Defendant's mental competence pursuant to Penal Code section 1368. Criminal proceedings are suspended.

A county approved psychiatrist is appointed pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 to examine the Defendant and prepare a report on the Defendant's current mental status within the meaning of Penal Code section 1368.

On Court's motion, 1368 PC Competency Hearing is set for Wednesday, February 28, 2024, at 8:30 AM in Hollywood Mental Health PC1368.

---

🔹 Legal Analysis

This February 14, 2024 minute order represents a pivotal procedural event in the People v. Michael Taylor case: the first official court record of Penal Code §1368 proceedings. However, this minute order was generated after a PC §730 competency evaluation had already been conducted — a fact that undermines its legitimacy and creates a retroactive attempt to justify prior procedural violations.

Key Legal Conflicts:

1. Retrospective Justification of Unlawful Evaluation

According to Exhibit B-2, Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo evaluated the defendant on January 5 and January 18, 2024.

Yet the declaration of doubt and suspension of proceedings under PC §1368 did not occur until February 14, 2024, nearly a month later.

Under Penal Code §1368(b), a court may only order a psychiatric evaluation for competency after it declares doubt. Any evaluation conducted before that declaration lacks statutory authority and is void ab initio (invalid from the outset).

2. Violation of Due Process

By admitting and acting on a pre-existing evaluation obtained without judicial declaration of doubt, the court violated the defendant’s procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The evaluation was not merely premature — it predicated state action (hospitalization, suspension of proceedings) on an unlawful predicate, directly implicating Jackson v. Indiana (1972) and Pate v. Robinson (1966).

3. Improper Use of Evidence Code §730

Evidence Code §730 allows for court-appointed experts, but does not override the requirements of PC §1368 for competency proceedings.

Here, §730 was misapplied to give the appearance of legitimacy to a prior evaluation that was outside the statutory timeline and beyond the scope of prior sealed orders (see Exhibit B-1).

---

🔹 Public Commentary (Accessible Explanation)

This minute order tells the court record: “We’re just now deciding that Mr. Taylor may not be competent to stand trial.” But here’s the problem — the doctor had already done the evaluation a month earlier and told the judge Mr. Taylor wasn’t competent.

How could a doctor legally evaluate someone’s competency before the court had officially said it had doubts? It’s like sentencing someone before the trial starts. It reverses the legal process.

In simple terms:

The doctor made a report in January.

The judge didn’t say anything about mental competency until mid-February.

Then the court acted as if it had ordered the evaluation all along.

That’s not how the law works. The court must first say there’s a problem, then order an evaluation — not the other way around. Otherwise, people can be declared mentally unfit without any legal hearing at all.

This minute order attempts to fix a mistake that had already happened, but it can't undo the damage of violating due process rights that are protected under the Constitution.

---

🔹 Implication for the Dossier

This exhibit (B-3) confirms and timestamps the due process violation that occurred in Exhibit B-2. The court’s declaration of doubt came after the unlawful evaluation, making this record a post-hoc attempt to sanitize a contaminated process.

This will be critical to proving:

No judicial authority existed when Dr. D'Ingillo conducted his PC §730 competency evaluation.

All resulting court actions (including hospitalization, medication, and suspension of trial) are procedurally tainted and subject to challenge.