California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. C.F. is that trial counsel renders ineffective assistance when failing to request a no-cost court reporter for a hearing on involuntary antipsychotic medication, under circumstances where the hearing provides the sole evidentiary basis for the court's order and the failure to secure a reporter is tantamount to waiver of the right to appeal.

Appeal from order granting petition for renewal of antipsychotic medication treatment authorization in Superior Court, Napa County.

Defendant Appellant was C.F. — a patient at Napa State Hospital found not guilty by reason of insanity who was subject to court-ordered antipsychotic medication.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — representing the Department of State Hospitals seeking renewal of authorization to treat C.F. with antipsychotic medication.

The suit sounded in involuntary medical treatment authorization. No cross-claims were applicable.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that C.F. was admitted to Napa State Hospital after being found not guilty by reason of insanity, the Department began treating him with antipsychotic medication pursuant to court order, and the Department filed a petition to renew the medication authorization order on May 21, 2025.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted the Department's petition for renewal of the antipsychotic medication order after an evidentiary hearing held without a court reporter, ruling by clear and convincing evidence that C.F. lacked capacity to refuse treatment. The court later denied C.F.'s application for a settled statement, finding he had waived his right to a reported record.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether C.F. received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney failed to request a no-cost court reporter for the evidentiary hearing on the medication authorization petition.

The Appellate Court held that trial counsel's failure to request a no-cost court reporter for a hearing on involuntary antipsychotic medication constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, where the hearing was the sole evidentiary basis for the petition and there was no conceivable rational tactical purpose for the failure to secure a reporter, resulting in prejudice tantamount to waiver of the right to appeal.

The case is inapplicable when the hearing is not the sole evidentiary basis for the court's order, when a court reporter is not available at no cost, when trial counsel had a rational tactical reason for not requesting a reporter, or when the defendant's right to appeal is not effectively waived by the lack of a record.

The case leaves open whether trial courts err by denying applications for settled statements in these circumstances, whether courts must ensure verbatim records of such hearings, and the scope of electronic recording requirements when official court reporters are unavailable.