Nos. 12-08-00068-CR, 12-08-00069-CR
Opinion delivered March 25, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appealed from the 217th Judicial District Court of Angelina County, Texas.
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and HOYLE, J.
BRIAN HOYLE, Justice.
Appellant Christopher Hewitt appeals his conviction for two counts of aggravated sexual assault. In three issues, Appellant asserts that his convictions, and the trial court's order setting his two sentences to run consecutively, should be reversed. We affirm.
Background
Appellant was charged by separate indictments with two counts of aggravated sexual assault. Specifically, the indictments alleged that, on two occasions, Appellant sexually assaulted a child "younger than fourteen years of age." The trial court appointed counsel to represent Appellant in his defense of these two charges. On May 16, 2006, Appellant filed an agreed motion suggesting incompetency and requesting an examination of Appellant by a disinterested expert. The following day, the trial court ordered that Appellant be examined for competency by Dr. Joseph Kartye, a psychologist in Lufkin, Texas. Kartye examined Appellant and provided a written report to the trial court. In that report, Kartye stated his opinion that Appellant was not competent to stand trial. However, Kartye provided the trial court with the following guidance: . . . There is ample evidence from both [Appellant's] history as well as current behavior that mental retardation significantly impairs his ability to assist his attorney with his defense.
There is the possibility that he could benefit from involvement in a program of instruction that teaches enough about the legal process and the roles of various court officials, as well as his rights and responsibilities, to the point that he could eventually be declared competent. Following a hearing on the matter, at which the report was entered into evidence, the trial court rendered a written judgment in each case finding Appellant incompetent to stand trial. As part of its judgment in each case, the trial court ordered that Appellant be committed and confined to the Vernon Campus of North Texas State Hospital for "further examination and treatment towards the specific objective of attaining competency to stand trial." Appellant was delivered to the Vernon Campus on July 30, 2007. On October 30, 2007, and after a period of observation and treatment, Dr. Gloria Bell, a psychologist at the hospital, prepared a written report for the trial court. After setting forth in detail the data forming the factual basis of her opinion, Bell stated that Appellant was "presently Competent to Stand Trial." (emphasis in original). On December 6, 2007, the trial court held a joint competency and plea hearing, addressing both aggravated sexual assault cases. During the hearing, the trial court allowed Appellant to plead "no contest" in both cases, and subsequently accepted those pleas. The trial court then found Appellant guilty in both cases and sentenced him to fifteen years of imprisonment for each. The trial court ordered that the sentences were to run consecutively. These appeals followed. Competency
In his first issue, Appellant asserts that the trial court rendered a judgment that Appellant had gained competency in only one of the two pending aggravated sexual assault cases. As such, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by resuming proceedings in the other case (appellate cause no. 12-08-00068-CR). In his second issue, Appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it rendered any judgments finding that Appellant had gained competency to stand trial. More specifically, Appellant argues that the trial court rendered any competency judgments without first reviewing adequate evidence upon which to base such a judgment.Competency Proceedings
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a trial court may not accept a criminal defendant's no contest plea unless that defendant is legally competent to make such a plea. SeeGodinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 400, 113 S. Ct. 2680, 2687, 125 L. Ed. 2d 321 (1993) (applying such a rule in guilty plea context). It is the constitutional duty of each state to provide reasonable procedures to address the issue of competency. Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 449-50, 112 S. Ct. 2572, 2579-80, 120 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1992). Further, a defendant whose competence is in doubt cannot be deemed to have expressly or implicitly waived his right to such procedures. Seeid., 505 U.S. at 449, 112 S. Ct. at 2579; Pate v.Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 384, 86 S. Ct. 836, 841, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815 (1966). Article 46B.084 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires that, after a defendant has been adjudicated incompetent to stand trial and has been criminally committed to a mental hospital, the trial court must make a judicial determination that the defendant has regained competency before the criminal proceedings against him may be resumed. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.084(a), (d) (Vernon Supp. 2008); Bradford v.State, 172 S.W.3d 1, 4-6 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). When the head of a mental health facility discharges a committed defendant to the trial court, the trial court may, absent timely objection, make a competency determination based solely on the report filed by the head of the facility where the defendant had been committed. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.084(a); Bradford, 172 S.W.3d at 5. "If the defendant is found competent to stand trial, criminal proceedings against the defendant may be resumed." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.084(d); SeeBradford, 172 S.W.3d at 4-5. Under Article 46B.084, once a defendant is found incompetent, he is presumed to be incompetent to stand trial until it has been determined in accordance with the law that he is competent to stand trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.084(a), (d); Bradford, 172 S.W.3d at 4. As such, appellate courts may not construe a trial court's decision to resume proceedings against a defendant to include an implied finding of competency. SeeSchaffer v. State, 583 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) (requiring additional evidence that trial court made competency finding); Bradford, 172 S.W.3d at 5 (same); Bell v. State, 814 S.W.2d 229, 232-33 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, pet. ref'd) (same). Expert evaluations containing recitations of competency cannot operate as a substitute for a judicial fact finding of a defendant's competency to stand trial. SeeSchaffer v. State, 583 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) (op. on reh'g) (holding that expert report filed in record was evidence of competency, not evidence the trial court made a finding of competency); Bradford, 172 S.W.3d at 5 (same); Bell, 814 S.W.2d at 232-33 (same). Instead, some evidence must exist that the trial court actually made a finding that the defendant had gained competency. Seeid. The failure of a defendant to object to a resumption in the proceedings does not waive a defendant's right to appeal such a resumption. SeeBradford, 172 S.W.3d at 6. Discussion
On December 19, 2008, we abated Appellant's appeals and remanded the cases to the trial court to make a judicial determination regarding Appellant's competency. SeeSchaffer, 583 S.W.2d at 631 (op. on reh'g); Bradford, 172 S.W.3d at 6. Pursuant to our order, the trial court held a hearing and, on February 4, 2009, made written findings in each case. The trial court found in each case that Appellant was competent to stand trial at the time of the joint competency and plea hearing and that Appellant remained so until such time as a final judgment was rendered in both. These findings were made after reviewing evidence relating to Appellant's competency, including the reports of Kartye and Bell. Cf. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.084(a) (trial court may, absent timely objection, make a competency determination based solely on report filed); Bradford, 172 S.W.3d at 5 (same). These reports provided sufficient evidence for the trial court to make its findings. Cf.id. Further, these findings were made within a reasonable time after December 6, 2007, the date of the joint competency and plea hearing. SeeSchaffer, 583 S.W.2d at 631 (op. on reh'g) (July 18, 1979 opinion abating for competency findings to be made regarding trial that occurred on May 16, 1977). In light of the trial court's judicial determination as to Appellant's competence, we hold that the trial court did not violate Appellant's due process rights by its resumption of proceedings or acceptance of Appellant's guilty pleas. SeeBell, 814 S.W.2d at 233 (finding no error where case file contained judgment of competency); see alsoGodinez, 509 U.S. at 400, 113 S. Ct. at 2687 (trial court may not accept defendant's plea unless defendant is legally competent to make plea). Moreover, the failure, if any, by the trial court to follow the requirements of Article 46B.084 during the December 6, 2007 joint competency and plea hearing was not preserved for appellate review because Appellant, an individual determined to be competent, failed to raise a complaint before the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 (setting forth the general rule of error preservation); cf.Bradford, 172 S.W.3d at 6 (holding error preserved where record before it contained no evidence that trial court had found defendant competent). Therefore, we overrule Appellant's first and second issues. Consecutive Sentences
In his third issue, Appellant argues that his sentences could not be ordered to run consecutively because the first of the two sentences is void. More specifically, Appellant asserts that, because the trial court failed to follow the procedures of Article 46B.084 before resuming proceedings, Appellant's first sentence is part of a void judgment. We note, however, that while Article 46B.084 does set forth the procedure necessary for a trial court to resume criminal proceedings following a judgment of incompetence, it does not operate to deprive a trial court of ongoing jurisdiction in that case. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.084. Because Article 46B.084 is not jurisdictional, we overrule Appellant's third issue. SeeNix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 667-69 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) (addressing void judgments). Disposition
We affirm the judgments of the trial court.