Prior to appellant’s trial for battery by a prisoner on a non-confined person, his trial counsel requested that the court have appellant examined pursuant to Penal Code section 1368 because he had made bizarre statements about the victim, and had not cooperated with counsel. The court made some inquiries of appellant concerning his understanding of the proceedings, and denied the request for a 1368 hearing, finding that it had no doubt as to appellant’s competency. The appellate court rejected appellant’s claim on appeal, finding that the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected claims that competency hearings were required in cases in which there was more evidence of possible incompetence than exists in this case. (The appellate court however, criticized the Supreme Court and stated that if it were “writing on a blank slate” it would conclude that the evidence of incompetence was sufficient here to hold a competency hearing.)