Southwestern Electric Power Company v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

NO. 07-08-00150-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
APRIL 8, 2010
GARY L. LINDSEY, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2003-402,049; HONORABLE CECIL G. PURYEAR, JUDGE
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
OPINION
Appellant Gary L. Lindsey appeals the revocation of his community supervision.
In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion because
it failed to conduct a competency inquiry sua sponte. We affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
Background
In 2003, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant plead guilty to a charge of
delivery of cocaine. The indictment also included a notice that the offense was
committed in a drug-free zone.1
In accordance with his plea agreement, appellant received a sentence that
included confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice for ten years and required his payment of restitution, costs and fees. The court
suspended the sentence of confinement and placed appellant on community
supervision for ten years. The terms of community supervision included appellant’s
commitment to a residential treatment facility. A year later, the terms were modified to
release appellant from the community corrections facility and place him on intensive
supervision. The State later filed an application to revoke appellant’s community
supervision, alleging numerous violations of the conditions of his community
supervision. The court held hearings on the motion in November 2007 and March 2008.
Appellant plead not true to each of the State=s allegations.
The State presented the testimony of the probation officer assigned to appellant
to show that appellant violated the terms of his probation by, among others, failing to
maintain abstinence from use or possession of alcoholic beverages and drugs by
testing positive for cocaine, failing to report, failing to make required payments, failing to
1
See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 481.112(c), (d) (Vernon 2001) and Tex. Health
& Safety Code Ann. ' 481.134 (Vernon 2003).
2
avoid persons or places of disreputable or harmful character, and failing to work
faithfully at suitable employment. The trial court found that appellant violated those
terms of his probation and sentenced him to imprisonment in the Institutional Division of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for ten years. The trial court certified
appellant=s right of appeal and appellant timely appealed.
Analysis
Applicable Law
By his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends the trial court abused its
discretion in failing to sua sponte conduct an informal inquiry into his competency to
stand trial as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure. We review a trial court=s
failure to conduct a competency inquiry under an abuse of discretion standard. Moore
v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385, 393 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1216, 120
S. Ct. 2220, 147 L. Ed. 2d 252 (2000); Gray v. State, 257 S.W.3d 825, 827
(Tex.App.BTexarkana 2008, pet. ref=d); LaHood v. State, 171 S.W.3d 613, 617-18
(Tex.App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref=d). A defendant is presumed competent to
stand trial and shall be found competent to stand trial unless proved incompetent by a
preponderance of the evidence. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.003(b) (Vernon
2006). A person is incompetent to stand trial if he does not have (1) sufficient present
ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or
(2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Id. at
46B.003(a). The same standard applies to a revocation hearing. See McDaniel v.
3
State, 98 S.W.3d 704, 710 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003); Rice v. State, 991 S.W.2d 953, 958
(Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1999, pet. ref’d) (each applying standard to revocation hearing).
If, during court proceedings, evidence comes to the attention of the trial court
from any source raising a bona fide doubt2 as to the defendant=s competency, the court
must conduct an informal inquiry outside the jury's presence to determine whether there
is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial. See Fuller v. State, 253
S.W.3d 220, 228 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008); Criswell v. State, 278 S.W.3d 455, 458
(Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.004
(Vernon 2005). In its inquiry, the court must determine whether there is any evidence to
support a finding of incompetency and, if the court finds that such evidence exists, it
must order an examination of the defendant. Fuller, 253 S.W.3d at 229; Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 46B.005(a), 46B.021 (Vernon 2005).
Evidence capable of creating a bona fide doubt about a defendant=s competency
may come from the trial court=s own observations, known facts, evidence presented,
motions, affidavits, or any other claim or credible source. Brown v. State, 129 S.W.3d
762, 765 (Tex.App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Evidence is usually sufficient to
create a bona fide doubt if it shows recent, severe mental illness, at least moderate
retardation, or truly bizarre acts by the defendant. McDaniel, 98 S.W.3d at 710. If
2
The Court of Criminal Appeals has defined a Abona fide doubt@ as Aa real doubt
in the judge=s mind as to the defendant=s competency.@ Fuller v. State, 253 S.W.3d 220,
228 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008).
4
evidence warrants a competency hearing, and the trial court denies such a hearing, the
defendant is deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial. LaHood, 171 S.W.3d at
618, citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385, 86 S. Ct. 836, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815 (1966).
Application
Appellant argues several facts were before the trial court that should have
suggested his incompetency to the court. Appellant first points to statements made by
his probation officer during testimony at the March 2008 hearing. The officer testified
that he handled a Aspecialized case load, people with mental health disorders.@ He also
said that appellant had resided at treatment centers for some period of time and
committed himself to a facility after having thoughts of suicide. Appellant also contends
that his “confusion” at the November 2007 hearing regarding whether the drug-free
zone allegation in his indictment had been “dropped” denoted his confused mental
state. The State argues that, even taken together, these facts did not trigger the court=s
duty to inquiry into appellant’s competence. We agree with the State.
Initially, we note that during appellant=s original plea hearing in 2003, appellant
answered affirmatively to the trial court’s question asking him, “Did you sign these [plea]
papers and give up those rights and enter your plea of guilty freely, knowingly and
voluntarily?” We note also that the record of the November 2007 hearing contains the
following exchange between the court and appellant=s trial counsel:
The Court: Counsel, you=ve had the opportunity to go over all these matters
with your client. Are you satisfied that he understands the nature of
5
the charge against him, the rights he=s entitled to under the law,
and the consequences of entering the plea before the Court here
today?
Counsel: I am, Your Honor.
The Court: Are you satisfied he is mentally competent to enter the plea before
the Court here today?
Counsel: Yes, sir, I am.
The record reflects appellant did not speak at the hearing held in March 2008,
but it does indicate he consulted with his attorney during the proceedings.
We see nothing in appellant’s conduct at any of the three hearings to cast doubt
on his competence to stand trial. The records reflect no statement or action in any way
inappropriate or unusual. Appellant said very little other than to express his
understanding of the questions and admonishments directed at him by the trial court.
His responses to admonishments and questions were timely, appropriate and logical.
Neither appellant, counsel, nor anyone else in the courtroom at any time voiced concern
over appellant=s ability to communicate with his counsel or understand the proceedings,
nor do we see anything in the record to suggest appellant was having difficulty
communicating or understanding the proceedings.
We disagree with appellant that his one spontaneous inquiry reflected in the
record, when at the November 2007 hearing he asked whether the drug-free zone
allegation of his indictment had been “dropped,” necessarily suggests confusion on his
part. As the State points out, it well can be seen as illustrating his understanding of the
proceedings against him.
6
Appellant urges us to find importance in his supervision by a probation officer
who testified to supervising probationers with mental health disorders. He argues no
evidence shows he was assigned to that officer in error or because of “some staffing
problem.” We disagree that any inference regarding appellant’s competency at trial is to
be drawn merely from his assignment to that particular probation officer. We disagree
also that the addition of appellant=s short stays at treatment facilities and his voluntary
commitment for suicidal thoughts combined to require the trial court to inquire into his
competence at the revocation hearings. The record indicates that after appellant was
placed on probation in 2003, he was initially sent to the Community Residential
Treatment Center. Each of appellant’s voluntary commitments occurred in 2004, more
than three years before the hearings on the application to revoke appellant’s community
supervision. None of the stays at treatment facilities raise questions about whether
appellant had a recent severe mental illness. Cf. Durgan v. State, 259 S.W.3d 219
(Tex.App.BBeaumont 2008, no pet.) (finding defendant’s inclusion in a “special needs”
SAFPF did not raise questions about whether she had a recent severe mental illness,
was moderately retarded or had exhibited truly bizarre behavior); Reeves v. State, 46
S.W.3d 397, 399-40 (Tex.App.BTexarkana 2001, pet. dism=d) (concluding evidence of
defendant=s drug addiction and suicide attempt did not reflect on her ability to
understand or participate in the proceeding on that day).
Appellant relies on Greene v. State, 225 S.W.3d 324 (Tex.App.BSan Antonio
2007, no pet.) (op. on reh=g), in which the San Antonio court found the language of art.
46B.004 signaled an intention of the Legislature to depart from the bona fide doubt
standard to trigger required competency inquiries. Id. at 329. A subsequent opinion of
7
the court of criminal appeals, however, reiterates the bona fide doubt standard.
Fuller, 253 S.W.3d at 228-29. We agree with the Beaumont court’s assessment that,
AFuller resolves recent questions about applying the bona fide doubt standard to
incompetency issues raised during trial.@ Durgan, 259 S.W.3d at 222. Moreover, on its
facts Greene is of no help to appellant. The circumstances described in the Greene
opinion bear no similarity to those present here. In Greene, the court found the
defendant’s Arambling, nonresponsive@ answers to questions and testimony Aof the most
bizarre quality@ suggested his incompetence and required the trial court to conduct an
informal inquiry into his competence. Greene, 225 S.W.3d at 329.
Courts have found no abuse of discretion in the presence of much stronger
evidence suggesting incompetence than was present here. See, e.g., Salahud-Din v.
State, 206 S.W.3d 203, 208 (Tex.App.BCorpus Christi 2006, pet. ref=d) (no abuse of
discretion in failing to conduct sua sponte inquiry even though three pretrial
psychological examinations were ordered by the court); LaHood, 171 S.W.3d at 619 (no
abuse of discretion in failure to sua sponte inquire into defendant=s competency despite
outbursts during trial, requests for medicine, comments concerning Apsych meds@ and
claim of difficulty understanding proceedings). See also Rojas v. State, 228 S.W.3d 770
(Tex.App.BAmarillo 2007, no pet.) (no abuse of discretion in failing to conduct further
informal inquiry or to appoint an expert to evaluate defendant when he made comments
during voir dire and throughout trial, engaged in non-responsive answers on the stand
and expressed view that police conspired to frame him).
8
Finding no abuse of discretion here in the trial court’s failure to initiate an informal
inquiry, we overrule appellant’s sole point of error, and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Publish.
9