Opinion
No. 4-05-00942-CR
Delivered and Filed: September 6, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas, Trial Court No. 04-08-9180-CR, Honorable Antonio Cantu, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Catherine STONE, Justice, Sarah B. DUNCAN, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Christopher Arias appeals a conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. Arias' sole issue on appeal is that the trial court erred when it failed to impanel a jury to conduct a competency hearing. We affirm.
Background
Arias waived his right to a jury trial on the guilt-innocence phase, pled guilty, and demanded a jury trial on the punishment phase. The jury sentenced Arias to fifteen years imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections-Institutional Division. Prior to Arias' plea, the court, the State, defense counsel, and Arias were present in the judge's chambers. Both sides announced ready for trial and the trial judge began an examination. The judge asked Arias if his rights had been explained, if he understood the charge against him, and whether he knew the applicable punishment which could be rendered. Pursuant to each question, Arias responded affirmatively. After Arias pled guilty, the trial judge asked him if he was pleading guilty because he was in fact guilty. From this point on, many of Arias' answers were nonresponsive; mainly, Arias tried to explain his relationship with the minor. In many instances, the court, the State, or defense counsel would have to ask Arias the same question several times in order to obtain an answer. Even then, some of the answers were nonresponsive. At one point, Arias' counsel stated, "I don't think he understands his actions. I don't think he is competent to stand trial, but it's whatever the Court rules." The trial judge responded, "I disagree with you there." Ultimately, Arias pled guilty to the charge against him and the plea was accepted by the trial judge. Arias brings a single issue on appeal: the trial court erred in accepting Arias' guilty plea without ordering a competency examination after an informal inquiry revealed Arias might be incompetent.Competency to Stand Trial
The conviction of a person who is legally incompetent violates due process. Lopez v. State, 909 S.W.2d 512, 514 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). A person is deemed incompetent to stand trial "if the person does not have: (1) sufficient present ability to consult with the person's lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or (2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against the person." Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 46B.002 (Vernon Supp. 2006). Certain procedural steps are utilized to determine whether the defendant's competence is an issue, namely:1) if a competency issue is raised by the defendant, any party, or the court; and
2) evidence of incompetency is brought to the attention of the trial court by the defendant, any party, or the court;
3) of the type to raise a bona fide doubt in the judge's mind regarding the defendant's competency to stand trial; then
4) the judge must conduct a . . . "competency inquiry" to determine if there is some evidence sufficient to support a finding of incompetence, and if there is,
5) the judge must impanel a jury for a . . . "competency hearing."McDaniel v. State, 98 S.W.3d 704, 710-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (citations omitted). The requirements of each step must be met before moving on to the next step. Id. Arias complains that the trial court erred by accepting his plea of guilt after an informal inquiry revealed evidence of incompetence. Thus, Arias complains of the trial court's failure to reach step five, impaneling a jury for a competency hearing. See id. at 111. In order to reach step five, following the trial court's inquiry, the court had to find some evidence sufficient to support an incompetence finding. Id. Arias argues the existence of some evidence was clear from his "irrational answers to questions posed to him by the court, defense counsel, and the prosecutor." Additionally, Arias contends the record illustrates that he "does not appear to comprehend the seriousness of the crime that he has been charged with, [and] at times his answers suggest paranoia and hallucinations." Assuming the other steps have been met in the competency analysis, Arias must illustrate that some evidence was before the trial court which required a competency hearing. Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 46B.004(c). Some evidence is "a quantity more than none or a scintilla, that rationally may lead to a conclusion of incompetency." Sisco v. State, 599 S.W.2d 607, 613 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980). In other words, "the question for the trial court is whether with respect to incompetency there is `any' evidence or `no' evidence." Id. We review a trial court's decision to conduct a competency hearing for an abuse of discretion. Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385, 393 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). A trial court abuses its discretion only if its rulings are arbitrary or unreasonable. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). Arias argues that his irrational answers constitute some evidence requiring the trial court to impanel a jury for a competency hearing. We disagree. The record illustrates numerous pages of dialogue between Arias and the judge, the prosecutor, and Arias' trial counsel. During these conversations, Arias confirmed that he understood: 1) his rights, such as the right to a jury trial, the right to remain silent, and his right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses who testify against him; 2) the charge against him; 3) the range of punishment, the possibility of a fine, and the chance of the jury sentencing him to probation rather than imprisonment; and 4) the act that he confessed to was a violation of the law. Additionally, Arias explained he has just gone through a full trial on the merits approximately four months before the case at issue and was familiar with the judicial proceedings. Although there were several instances where Arias stated that he was unaware of what was happening during the examination, this alone is not enough. See McDaniel, 98 S.W.3d at 711 (holding that the assertion, "I am incompetent," without supporting facts or evidence, is insufficient to require a competency hearing). His affirmative answers made it clear that he had a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him as well as a sufficient ability to consult with trial counsel. See Mitchell v. State, No. 14-03-00923-CR, 2004 WL 3202866, at *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 24, 2004, pet. ref'd) (mem. op.) (concluding that the defendant's testimony that he was "confused" was a conclusory statement which was not enough to support a conclusion of incompetency). Arias also contends there was evidence to suggest paranoia and hallucinations; however, he fails to provide any citation to the record to support these claims. Because he has failed to properly present this argument to this court, we decline to address this issue. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(h). Arias has presented no evidence suggesting he was incapable of consulting with his attorney or understanding the proceedings against him. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we overrule Arias sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.