Ivanna Ortiz Defies Lawyer, Demands Speedy Trial As New Filings Claim Rihanna Heard Shots First

The legal battle surrounding the shooting at pop superstar Rihanna’s Beverly Hills home took a dramatic turn on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, as the accused gunman, Ivanna Ortiz, rejected her court-appointed lawyer’s request for a competency evaluation and demanded a speedy trial. The unusual move came as new court filings raised questions about the sequence of events leading to the March 8 incident, in which Ortiz allegedly fired 20 rounds from an AR-15-style rifle at the property occupied by Rihanna, her partner A$AP Rocky (Rakim Mayers), their three young children, and Rihanna’s mother.

Ortiz, 35, appeared before Los Angeles County Judge Shannon Cooley in a hearing that underscored the high-stakes legal maneuvering in a case already steeped in controversy. According to court documents obtained by Rolling Stone, Ortiz insisted she wanted to proceed without delay, despite her attorney’s concerns about her mental capacity to stand trial. Judge Cooley ruled that there was insufficient evidence to override Ortiz’s wishes, though she offered to assist the defense by obtaining jail records to assess her competency.

“A competency hearing is mandated only if there’s objective evidence of a defendant’s incompetence, regardless of [defense] counsel’s subjective opinion. Voluntary barriers to communication with counsel or a doctor are not sufficient.”

— Los Angeles County Judge Shannon Cooley, May 13, 2026

The judge’s remarks highlighted a tension between Ortiz’s insistence on moving forward and her lawyer’s belief that her refusal to cooperate—including halting communication with legal counsel—could signal underlying mental health issues. Prosecutors have charged Ortiz with one count of attempted murder, 10 counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and three counts of shooting at an inhabited dwelling. The allegations stem from Ortiz allegedly driving to Rihanna’s home on March 8 and opening fire while the property was occupied.

New details from the case have further complicated the narrative. A police report cited by Rolling Stone suggests that Rihanna and Mayers were inside an Airstream trailer parked outside the main home when the shooting occurred. According to the report, Rihanna heard “approximately ten loud sounds like something banging on metal,” implying she may have been the first to perceive the threat. This account contrasts with earlier public statements and raises questions about the timeline of events leading to the confrontation.

The case has drawn significant media attention, with court appearances and legal filings closely scrutinized. Ortiz’s decision to push for a speedy trial—despite her lawyer’s objections—could accelerate the legal process, potentially bringing the matter to a probable cause hearing sooner rather than later. However, the judge’s willingness to explore jail records suggests that questions about Ortiz’s mental state may linger, even if they do not immediately derail the trial timeline.

For Rihanna and Mayers, the incident remains a deeply traumatic event. The couple has largely avoided public commentary on the case, though their legal team and security details have been closely monitored in the wake of the shooting. The broader entertainment industry has also watched the proceedings with interest, given the high-profile status of those involved.

As the legal process unfolds, the focus will remain on whether Ortiz’s insistence on proceeding without a competency evaluation holds up under further scrutiny. The judge’s decision to allow the case to move forward—while leaving the door open for additional records—reflects the delicate balance between a defendant’s rights and the need to ensure a fair trial. The next steps in the case will likely hinge on whether prosecutors can present sufficient evidence to justify moving forward, or whether Ortiz’s legal team can compel a deeper examination of her mental capacity.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications not only for Ortiz but also for the legal standards surrounding competency evaluations in high-profile criminal proceedings. As the trial date approaches, all eyes will remain on the courtroom, where the stakes could not be higher.