When a trial court orders involuntary administration of antipsychotics to protect the defendant’s health and not for the purpose of rendering him competent to stand trial, neither Sell v. United States (2003) 539 U.S. 166 nor Penal Code section 1370, subdivision (a)(2)(B)(i)(III) apply. Lameed appealed after the trial court declared him incompetent, committed him to the state hospital, and authorized the involuntary administration of antispychotics to protect his health. He argued that the order authorizing the involuntary administration was invalid because it failed to comply with Sell v. United States (2003) 539 U.S. 166 or section 1370, subdivision (a)(2)(B)(i)(III). Held: Affirmed. Under Sell, court must make a number of findings before ordering involuntary administration of antipsychotics to render a defendant competent to stand trial. Section 1370, subdivision (a)(2)(B)(i)(III) essentially codifies Sell. Although the trial court did not make the requisite findings under Sell and subdivision (a)(2)(B)(i)(III), it did not have to. Those tests only apply when involuntary administration is ordered in an effort to render the defendant competent to stand trial. They do not apply when involuntary administration is ordered for another purpose, like to protect the defendant’s health or to protect others from the defendant. Where, as here, involuntary administration is ordered to protect the defendant’s health, section 1370, subdivision (a)(2)(B)(i)(I) applies. The trial court’s findings under subdivision (a)(2)(B)(i)(I) (e.g., that involuntary administration was necessary to protect Lameed’s health) were supported by substantial evidence consisting mainly of expert opinion that Lameed would continue having delusions and attempt suicide if left untreated and would not voluntarily take antipsychotics because he did not believe he was mentally ill.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H042399.PDF