To prevail on his claim, Mr. Benavides must plead facts that, if proved, demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidencethat, as a result of a mental disorder, he was unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him, consult with counsel, or assist in preparing his defense. See Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960): Cal. Penal Code § 1367(a); People v. Rogers, 39 Cal. 4th 826, 846-47 (2006). A claim of substantive incompetence does not require “a showing oferror on the part of the trial judge, or any other state actor.”

21.) Statutory embodiments of competency requirements in other common-law jurisdictions are also instructive: under Canadian law, for example, “unfit to stand trial” is defined as “unable on accountofmental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so, and, in particular, unable on account ofmental disorder to (a) understand the nature or object ofthe “8 Available at 90 proceedings, (b) understand the possible consequencesofthe proceedings, or (c) communicate with counsel.” (Criminal Code, R.S.C. s. 2. (1985) (Can.); cf. California Pen. Code §1367 (a) [incompetence defined only as “unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedingsorto assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner’”].). Elsewhere in the Western world, the European Court ofHuman Rights has held that effective participation in trial proceedings presupposes that an accused(i) “has a broad understanding ofthe nature ofthetrial process and ofwhatis at stake for him or her, including the significance of any penalty which may be imposed”;(ii) is “able to understand the general thrust ofwhat is said in court”; (iii) is “able to follow what is said by the prosecution witnesses and, if represented, to explain to his own lawyershis version of events, point out any statements with which he disagrees and make them aware of any facts which should be put forward in his defence.”

Under section 1370.1, subdivision (a)( 1 )(H), "developmental disability" is defined to include mental retardation. The principles in section 1367 are implemented by section 1368, which provides: "(a) If, during the pendency of an action and prior to judgment, a doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental competence of the defendant, he or she shall state that doubt in the record and inquire of the attorney for the defendant whether, in the opinion of the attorney, the defendant is mentally competent. If the defendant is not represented by counsel, the court shall appoint counsel.

(/d., at p. 172, citing Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375 [86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815].) California Penal Code section 1367, subsection (a), says, “A person cannotbetried or adjudged to punishmentwhile that person is ... unable to understandthe nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conductof a defense in a rational manner.” If a trial judge has a doubt about the mental competence of the defendant, Penal Code section 1368, subsection (a), requires the judge to “state that doubt in the record and inquire of the attorney for the defendant whether, in the opinion of the attorney, the defendant is mentally competent.”