Matthew Lyle Addison v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-20-00234-CR
__________________
MATTHEW LYLE ADDISON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 258th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 2018-0011
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 3, 2020, the trial court convicted Matthew Lyle Addison of
driving while intoxicated and sentenced Addison to confinement in the Polk County
Jail for 10 days. In his appeal brief, Addison argued in part that his right to due
process had been violated because a mental evaluation was necessary and ordered
by the trial court but never completed. On August 10, 2022, we abated the appeal
and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to determine the feasibility
of a retrospective competency evaluation.
1
On April 26, 2023, the State filed an unopposed motion to reinstate the
appeal, vacate the trial court’s judgment, and remand the case to the trial court. The
State informs the Court that the defendant is unable to cooperate with a competency
evaluation and it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the case.
“The constitutional standard for competency to stand trial asks whether the
defendant has a sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable
degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual
understanding of the proceedings against him.” Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676,
689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “A criminal defendant who is incompetent may not be
put to trial without violating due process.” Id. at 688. Depending upon the quality
and quantity of the evidence available, in most cases a retrospective competency
inquiry may be conducted consistent with the requirements of due process. See
Barber v. State, 737 S.W.2d 824, 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). When a retrospective
competency hearing is not feasible, however, the appropriate disposition of the
appeal is to reverse the trial court’s judgment of conviction and to remand the case
for a new trial. See Greene v. State, 264 S.W.3d 271, 273 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
2008, pet. ref’d).
The State contends a retrospective competency evaluation is not feasible and
asks this Court to vacate the judgment and remand the case to the trial court so that
the trial court may dismiss the case. Addison has not opposed the State’s motion.
2
Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal, grant the State’s motion, vacate the judgment
of conviction, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings as justice
requires.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
_________________________
JAY WRIGHT
Justice
Submitted on April 8, 2022
Opinion Delivered May 24, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.
3