From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Felts v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Mar 1, 2005
Nos. 05-04-00352-CR, 05-04-00353-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 1, 2005)

Opinion

Nos. 05-04-00352-CR, 05-04-00353-CR

Opinion issued March 1, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F03-41304-Pn F03-41376-N. Affirmed.

Before Justices WHITTINGTON, FITZGERALD, and RICHTER.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


William Douglas Felts appeals his convictions for the aggravated assaults of his mother and his aunt. In three points of error, appellant contends his guilty plea in each case was involuntary because the trial judge failed to sua sponte order a competency hearing and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We affirm the trial court's judgments. In his second and third points of error, appellant claims his guilty pleas were involuntary because the "record fails to reflect whether the trial court determined whether Appellant was mentally competent" before accepting appellant's guilty pleas. Appellant contends the record contains sufficient evidence to raise the issue of his competency and that, in light of this evidence, the trial judge should have held a competency hearing. He argues that, in failing to do so, the trial judge could not have properly admonished appellant, rendering his pleas involuntary. We disagree. A person is legally incompetent to stand trial if he does not have the capacity to (i) understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, (ii) consult with counsel, and (iii) assist in preparing his defense. See McDaniel v. State, 98 S.W.3d 704, 709 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). The conviction of an accused who is legally incompetent violates due process; therefore, to protect criminal defendant's constitutional rights, a trial judge must inquire into the accused's mental competence once the issue is sufficiently raised. McDaniel, 98 S.W.3d at 709. If, after an informal inquiry, the judge determines evidence exists to support a finding of incompetency, the judge shall order an examination to determine whether the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.005(a) (Vernon 2004-05). Evidence which shows recent severe mental illness, moderate or greater retardation, or truly bizarre acts by the defendant is sufficient to create a question of competency. McDaniel, 98 S.W.3d at 710. However, evidence of previous psychiatric treatment or drug addiction, standing alone, does not raise the issue of competency. See Ex parte McWilliams, 634 S.W.2d 815, 821 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); cf. Leyva v. State, 552 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) (mere fact that appellant received psychiatric treatment does not support finding of incompetency); Reeves v. State, 46 S.W.3d 397, 400 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. dism'd) (evidence of appellant's drug addiction and suicide attempt did not reflect on ability to understand or participate in proceedings on day of trial). In determining whether a defendant's competency is an issue, the trial judge must consider only that evidence tending to show incompetency, putting aside all competing indications of competency. Barber v. State, 737 S.W.2d 824, 828 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). Although appellant claims the evidence sufficiently raised the issue of his mental competence such that the trial judge should have, at a minimum, informally inquired into his competency, we disagree. During trial, appellant's aunt testified he had a "behavioral problem and social problems" since he was a young child. Appellant did not like house rules and would do whatever he wanted. Although she did not know if appellant used drugs, she testified she had "concerns for his mental health." Appellant's mother testified he was diagnosed with ADHD when he was in grade school and took the "normal medication for kids." When he was twelve years old, he was charged with sexual assault of "a little girl." The assault happened at the Boys and Girls Club. He was confined to a "rehabilitation ranch-type facility" for three years but got his GED. Appellant testified he had been using drugs, including heroin, crack cocaine, marijuana, "shrooms, [and] ice" when he attacked his mother and aunt. He testified

I know I've had a troubled life. I've made a lot of bad decisions. There is no reasonable or logical explanation for what I've done towards my mom or aunt.
He added that he felt he had some "mental issues" that needed to be addressed. This evidence does not show present severe mental illness, moderate retardation, or any bizarre acts by appellant. Rather, it suggests that appellant had behavioral and emotional problems. See McDaniel, 98 S.W.3d at 711 (fact that motion is filed asserting "an issue" of competency or incompetency or that trial judge orders defendant to undergo psychiatric evaluation is not sufficient to require trial judge to inquire into defendant's competency); Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385, 395 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (defendant's propensity toward depression did not necessarily correlate with ability to communicate with counsel or to understand proceedings against him; thus, history of prior hospitalization and treatment for depression did not warrant competency hearing without evidence of severe mental illness or recent impairment); Reeves, 46 S.W.3d at 400 (evidence of drug addiction, and suicide attempt was no reflection on appellant's ability to understand and participate in proceedings against her); Townsend v. State, 949 S.W.2d 24, 27 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (suicidal tendencies and depression did not raise bona fide doubt about defendant's competency); Ward v. State, 906 S.W.2d 182, 185 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd) (evidence regarding nature and causes of appellant's drug addiction raised no issue regarding appellant's ability to understand the proceedings against him or to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding). Because the record fails to contain evidence that appellant did not have sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him, we cannot conclude the trial judge was required to sua sponte conduct an inquiry into appellant's competency to stand trial. It follows that the trial judge did not err in accepting appellant's guilty pleas. We overrule appellant's second and third points of error. In his first point of error, appellant claims he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial when counsel failed to request a psychiatric evaluation of appellant. Having already concluded that there was no evidence in the record raising the issue of incompetency, we cannot conclude trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for a competency hearing. See Bourque v. State, 2005 WL 341688, at *2 (Tex.App.-Dallas Feb. 14, 2005, no pet. h.) (counsel not ineffective for failing to object to unobjectionable documents); Brown v. State, 129 S.W.3d 762, 767 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails when no evidence in record demonstrated appellant was incompetent or insane); Thacker v. State, 999 S.W.2d 56, 67 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd) (trial counsel not ineffective for failing to object to legally sufficient indictment). Because appellant failed to establish trial counsel's performance was deficient, we conclude his complaint lacks merit. We overrule appellant's first point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgments.


Summaries of

Felts v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Mar 1, 2005
Nos. 05-04-00352-CR, 05-04-00353-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 1, 2005)
Case details for

Felts v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM DOUGLAS FELTS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Mar 1, 2005

Citations

Nos. 05-04-00352-CR, 05-04-00353-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 1, 2005)