Opinion
Nos. 10-03-239-CR, 10-03-240-CR, 10-03-241-CR, 10-03-242-CR
Opinion delivered and filed September 29, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 363rd District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Nos. F02-51314-W, F02-51315-W, F02-51316-W and F02-72474-W. Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal of convictions for aggravated assault. We will affirm. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in not empanelling a jury to try the issue of Appellant's competency. Appellant points to evidence that near the time of the offense he had shot a couch in the belief that someone was behind it, and that he had sent letters to the judge "containing bizarre thoughts and ideations." He also points to his attorney's assertion, unsupported by evidence, of his "inability to communicate" with the attorney. The trial court interrogated Appellant concerning his understanding of the parties to and process of trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the evidence did not raise a bona fide doubt as to whether Appellant had the sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him. See Act of May 26, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 561, § 1, sec. 1A(a), 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 3092, 3092 (repealed 2003) (current version at TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.003 (Vernon Supp. 2004)); Act of May 29, 1975, 64th Leg., R.S., ch. 415, § 1, sec. 2(a), 1975 Tex. Gen. Laws 1095, 1095-96 (repealed 2003) (current version at TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.004(a)-(c) (Vernon Supp. 2004); McDaniel v. State, 98 S.W.3d 704, 710-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). We overrule Appellant's issue. We affirm the judgment.