Turner, Albert James ( 2015 )

WR-80,559-02
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 1/23/2015 4:10:56 PM
Accepted 1/23/2015 4:24:29 PM
ABEL ACOSTA
NO. WR-80,559-02 CLERK
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS RECEIVED
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
STATE OF TEXAS 1/23/2015
ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
RELATING TO CAUSE N0. 10-DCR-054233
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
IN RE JAMES ALBERT TURNER
VS.
HONORABLE BRADY G. ELLIOTT, JUDGE PRESIDING
268TH DISTRICT COURT, FORT BEND, COUNTY
STATE’S RESPONSE TO THE PETITION
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION
JOHN F. HEALEY, JR.
District Attorney, 268th Judicial District
Fort Bend County, Texas
Fred M. Felcman
First Assistant District Attorney
Gail Kikawa McConnell
Assistant District Attorney
SBOT #11395400
Fort Bend County, Texas
301 Jackson Street, Room 101
Richmond, Texas 77469
(281) 341-4460 / (281) 238-3340 (fax)
Gail.McConnell@fortbendcountytx.gov
Counsel for the State of Texas,
Real Party in Interest
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 52.4, the State supplements relator’s list of counsel
as follows:
For The State of Texas, Real Party in Interest
Gail Kikawa McConnell Assistant District Attorney
SBOT # 11395400
301 Jackson Street, Room 101
Richmond, Texas 77469
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENT EVIDENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
APPENDIX A: State’s answer to Turner’s motion to address current competency
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE
Barber v. State,
757 S.W.2d 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Greene v. State,
264 S.W.3d 271, 272 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d). . . . . . . . . 5
Huggins v. Crews,
2014 WL 5026425 (Fla. Oct. 9, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,5
Moore v. Superior Court,
237 P.3d 530 (Calif. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Ryder v. State,
83 P.3d 856 (Okla. Crim. App.), cert. denied 543 U.S. 886 (2004).. . . . . 4,5
State v. McRae,
594 S.E.2d 71 (N.C. Ct. App.),
pet. denied 599 S.E.2d 911 (N.C. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,5
Turner v. State,
422 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
STATUTES AND RULES
TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Article 46B.002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Article 46B.005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
iii
NO. WR-80,559-02
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
STATE OF TEXAS
RELATING TO CAUSE N0. 10-DCR-054233
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
IN RE JAMES ALBERT TURNER
VS.
HONORABLE BRADY G. ELLIOTT, JUDGE PRESIDING
268TH DISTRICT COURT, FORT BEND, COUNTY
STATE’S RESPONSE TO THE PETITION
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a death penalty case. On October 30, 2013, this Court remanded this
case, instructing:
On remand, the trial court shall first determine whether it is presently
feasible to conduct a retrospective competency trial, given the passage
of time, availability of evidence, and any other pertinent considerations.
Should the trial court deem a retrospective competency trial to be
feasible, it shall proceed to conduct such a trial in accordance with
Chapter 46B, Subchapter C, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Regardless of whether the trial court deems a retrospective competency
trial to be feasible, the record of the proceedings on remand shall then
1
be returned to this Court for reinstatement of the appeal.
Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (footnotes omitted).
On April 2, 2014, this Court denied the State’s motion for rehearing and issued
its mandate.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 30, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the feasibility of a
retrospective competency trial. [Pet. Ex. B, RR-5/30/14 at 1] At that hearing, for the
first time, Turner presented the Court with Greene v. State, 264 S.W.3d 271, 272
(Tex. App.--San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d), holding that a defendant must be currently
competent to stand a retrospective competency trial. [Pet. Ex. B, RR-5/30/14 at 6]
In an abundance of caution, the trial court invited Turner and the State to each submit
the name of a psychiatrist to evaluate Turner for contemporary competency. [Pet. Ex.
B, RR-5/30/14 at 16, 17-18]
The trial court appointed Dr. Mary Alice Conroy a psychologist on the
recommendation of Appellant, and Dr. Mark Moeller, a psychiatrist on the
recommendation of the State. Turner refused to see both doctors. [Appendix A,
being a copy of the State’s answer to Turner’s motion to determine his current
competency, Exhibits A & B]
The trial court found that a retrospective competency trial is feasible and set
2
this cause for trial on December 1, 2014.
On December 1, 2014, the Court reset the retrospective hearing to January 26,
2015. On January 16, 2015, Turner re-urged his motion to determine current
competency, which the trial court denied after reaffirming its determination that the
retrospective competency trial was feasible. [App-Ex E at 1, 15-16]
ARGUMENT
In two issues, Relator asserts the trial court “abused its discretion” in
determining a retrospective competency trial without due process. The crux of both
issues is that Relator believes he is entitled to a jury trial on his contemporary
competency. Relator omits the State’s answer to his motion in the trial court. The
State files this response to supplement the record with the State’s answer to Turner’s
motion, which shows that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding
without a jury trial on his contemporary competency. See Appendix A, being a copy
of the answer.
Further, Relator fails to show this Court that he has no adequate remedy in the
appeal of the jury’s determination of his retrospective competency. See Barber v.
State, 757 S.W.2d 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The issue of whether a contemporary
competency must be determined before a retrospective competency trial is held has
been determined by courts in other states on appeal from the retrospective
3
competency trial. See, Ryder v. State, 83 P.3d 856, 870-71 (Okla. Crim. App.), cert.
denied 543 U.S. 886 (2004) (death penalty case); and State v. McRae, 594 S.E.2d 71,
79 (N.C. Ct. App.), pet. denied 599 S.E.2d 911 (N.C. 2004). See also, Huggins v.
Crews, 2014 WL 5026425, at *4 (Fla. Oct. 9, 2014) (on appeal of the denial of post
conviction relief in a death penalty case, deciding that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in failing to hold competency proceedings prior to the evidentiary hearing
on whether Huggins was competent to proceed with post conviction matters).
Relator has an adequate remedy on appeal of the retrospective competency
trial. Relator’s petition should be denied.
Relator relies on this Court’s opinion on direct appeal, remanding this case for
a competency trial in part because the trial court appointed an expert to evaluate
Turner for competency to stand trial:
In any event, here, at least as of May 20, 2011, when voir dire was
interrupted for the hearing at which Dr. Almeida testified, the trial court
was obviously persuaded that a bona fide doubt did exist as to the
appellant’s competency.
Turner, 422 S.W.3d 676.
As shown in the reporter’s record of the May 16, 2014, hearing on the
feasibility of a retrospective competency hearing, the trial court never doubted that
Turner was competent to stand trial, but had appointed Dr. Almeida and heard her
4
testimony to make a full record. [App. A, Ex A at 17-18]
This case is again in the same posture as at trial. The trial court again
appointed experts to evaluate Turner for contemporary competency at the urging of
counsel on the questionable authority of Greene v. State, 264 S.W.3d 271, 272 (Tex.
App.--San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d). Greene cited no authority in requiring
contemporary competency for a retrospective competency trial. Greene is the only
authority cited by Turner to require a trial court to determine contemporary
competency for a retrospective competency trial, and the State has found no other
case to so require.
Rather, the State has found contrary authority holding that no finding of
contemporary competency is required for a retrospective competency trial. See,
Ryder v. State, 83 P.3d 856, 870-71 (Okla. Crim. App.), cert. denied 543 U.S. 886(2004) (death penalty case); and State v. McRae, 594 S.E.2d 71, 79 (N.C. Ct. App.),
pet. denied 599 S.E.2d 911 (N.C. 2004). See also, Huggins v. Crews, 2014 WL
5026425, at * (Fla. Oct. 9, 2014). See also, Moore v. Superior Court, 237 P.3d 530,
543 (Calif. 2010) (holding that although the Sexually Violent Predators Act provides
“the person shall be entitled to the rights guaranteed under the federal and State
Constitutions for criminal proceedings,” the person does not have a due process
competence right in part because such “could prevent an SVP determination from
5
being made at all”).
The State’s petition for discretionary review in Greene did not raise the
question of whether contemporary competency was required for a retrospective
competency trial. [App. A, Ex F] Whether the Court would require contemporary
competency is a question that may be taken by Turner on appeal.
The trial court appointed, “in an abundance of caution” to give the Court a full
record, two experts to evaluate Turner. Turner refused to be evaluated for
competency. That is his choice. The presumption of competency should prevail.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 46B.002(b) (West 2014). Turner tendered no evidence,
other than the arguments of counsel, to show otherwise.
Article 46B.005 requires “that evidence exists to support a finding of
incompetency,” before a trial is required. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 46B.005(b)
(West 2014). That phrase should not require a trial just because a trial court
appointed experts “in an abundance of caution” to assure the court that it did not miss
what trained psychiatric experts might see. Given the presumption of competency,
the bar on “evidence exists to support a finding of incompetency” should not be set
so low that any argument of incompetency by defense attorneys--without any valid
expert finding of incompetency, without any prior history of mental illness, without
any report by family members or friends of mental illness, without any showing of
6
brain injury--should require a trial on competency.
PRAYER
Real party in interest, The State of Texas, prays that the petition for Writs of
Mandamus and Prohibition be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
John F. Healey, Jr.
SBOT 09328300
District Attorney, 268th Judicial District
Fort Bend County, Texas
/s/ Fred M. Felcman
SBOT # 06881500
First Assistant District Attorney
/s/ Gail Kikawa McConnell
SBOT # 11395400
Assistant District Attorney
301 Jackson Street, Room 101
Richmond, Texas 77469
(281) 341-4460 /(281) 238-3340 (fax)
Gail.McConnell@fortbendcountytx.gov
7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENT EVIDENCE
I hereby certify that I have reviewed the foregoing petition and every factual
statement is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.
/s/ Fred M. Felcman
Fred M. Felcman
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that the State’s Response to the petition for writ of mandamus,
in total contains 1,878 words as counted by WordPerfect 12, which is less than the
15,000 word limit for a response to an original petition. Tex. R. App. 9.4(i)(2)(B).
/s/ Gail Kikawa McConnell
Gail Kikawa McConnell
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the State's response was served by electronic
mail on January 23, 2015, on Robert Morrow and Amy Martin, attorneys for Relator,
and on Hon. Brady G. Elliott, Judge, 268th District Court, Respondent.
/s/ Gail Kikawa McConnell
Gail Kikawa McConnell
8
APPENDIX A