Opinion
Nos. 05-04-01400-CR, 05-04-01401-CR
Opinion Filed July 29, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F02-32361-NH, F02-32362-PH. Affirm.
Before Justices WRIGHT, BRIDGES, and FITZGERALD.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In these cases, Stephen Stowell waived a jury trial and entered negotiated guilty pleas to burglary of a habitation and aggravated assault. In each case, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on five years' community supervision, and assessed a $1000 fine. Later, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty, assessed punishment at twelve years' confinement in each case, made an affirmative family violence finding in the burglary case, and made an affirmative deadly weapon finding in the aggravated assault case. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court failed to conduct a competency inquiry. We affirm the trial court's judgments. The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellant Procedure 47.1. In his sole issue on appeal, appellant complains the trial court failed to sua sponte conduct a competency inquiry because appellant's testimony showed that issues of mental retardation and lack of capacity were in question. Appellant frames his claim of error as occurring during the punishment phase. However, he actually attacks the procedure to adjudicate guilt, and the testimony he references occurred during the adjudication hearing. "Appellant may not directly appeal the trial court's conclusions on his competency that occurred during the adjudication process." Henderson v. State, 132 S.W.3d 112, 115 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon 2004-05); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). Thus, we dismiss the complaint to the extent it raises competency issues from the adjudication hearing. To the extent appellant challenges the punishment hearing, there is no evidence that appellant's competence was in issue. Appellant's counsel asked appellant if he understood that the judge would sentence him to imprisonment for a term between two and twenty years. Appellant asked if that meant he would not be put back on probation, to which counsel replied that appellant could not be put back on probation. Then counsel asked appellant to tell the judge what he would do when released from prison and why he would not go around his ex-wife. Appellant testified he wanted a short sentence because he intended to go back to Tennessee and continue life with his new girlfriend. While there was evidence appellant may have had some difficulties understanding different requirements of community supervision, the record contains no evidence that these difficulties were the result of mental retardation. Because there was no evidence presented that raised a "bona fide doubt" about appellant's competency, the trial court did not need to perform a competency inquiry. See McDaniel v. State, 98 S.W.3d 704, 710 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). We overrule appellant's sole issue on appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.