Brown v. State

• Decision Date: 12 February 2004
• Docket Number: No. 01-02-01090-CR.,01-02-01090-CR.
• Citation: 129 S.W.3d 762
• Parties: Kristian Anthony BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

129 S.W.3d 762

Kristian Anthony BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 01-02-01090-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

February 12, 2004.

Yalila Guerrero, Houston, TX, for Appellant.

Charles A. Rosenthal, Jr., District Attorney-Harris County, William J. Delmore, III, Chief Prosecutor, Appellate Division, Amanda J. Peters, Assistant District Attorney, Houston, TX, for Appellee.

Panel consists of Justices NUCHIA, ALCALA, and HANKS.

OPINION

ELSA ALCALA, Justice.

Appellant, Kristian Anthony Brown, pleaded not guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery, but was found guilty by a jury, which assessed his punishment at 20 years' confinement in prison and a $60 fine. In three issues, appellant contends that the trial court erred by not holding a competency hearing sua sponte when evidence adduced at trial indicated appellant might be incompetent to stand trial, in violation of appellant's rights under state laws and the United States Constitution, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm.

Background

On the evening of April 3, 2002, David Norton pulled into a drive-thru Automatic Teller Machine (ATM). After withdrawing cash from the machine, he looked up to find appellant standing next to his car, pointing a gun at him. Appellant demanded Norton's money and ordered him to withdraw more money from the ATM. Norton remained in his car, handed appellant his money, and attempted to withdraw more money from the ATM. When Norton accidentally dropped his ATM card, he noticed that appellant was distracted. Norton then put his car into gear and quickly drove off toward another end of the lot. A fence at the end of the lot prevented Norton from driving any further. In fear that appellant might approach him again, Norton repeatedly honked the horn on his car, which resulted in appellant's departure from the scene.

Surveillance cameras located inside and around the ATM machine captured photographs of the robbery, which were distributed by a police officer to local police storefronts in an effort to determine if anyone might recognize the robber. Officer John Jackson recognized appellant from the surveillance photos. Appellant was placed in a live lineup and was positively identified by Norton.

Before trial, appellant's counsel requested that an expert from the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Association (MHMRA) examine appellant to determine his competency to stand trial and his sanity at the time of the offense. Dr. Ramon Laval, a licensed psychologist, examined appellant in jail and determined that he was both competent and sane. During the interview, appellant indicated that he was aware of his legal predicament and the charges against him. After the interview, Dr. Laval concluded that "appellant was not suffering from mental defects or mental disease of sufficient severity to prohibit him from standing trial at the present time." Dr. Laval also indicated that "appellant demonstrated the ability to consult with his counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and he has a rational, as well as a factual understanding of the legal proceedings against him." Additionally, Dr. Laval's sanity evaluation indicated that "appellant did not meet the criteria for the insanity defense." There were no other inquiries made, nor any other indications that appellant was incompetent to stand trial after Dr. Laval's evaluation, nor any requests from any party that the trial court hold a competency hearing.

Competency to Stand Trial

In his first two issues, appellant contends that evidence adduced at the punishment phase indicated that he might be incompetent to stand trial and that his state and federal constitutional rights were violated because the trial court did not order a competency hearing sua sponte. Appellant alleges that the psychiatric evidence presented at his trial should have alerted the court to conduct a "section 2(b) inquiry" sua sponte, even though neither his attorney nor the State ever requested a competency determination by the court or the jury.

The standard of review on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a competency hearing. See Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385, 393 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial and shall be found competent to stand trial unless proved incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46.02 § 1A(b) (Vernon Supp.2004). A person is incompetent to stand trial if he does not have (1) sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or (2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46.02 § 1A(a) (Vernon Supp.2004).

If, during a defendant's trial, evidence of the defendant's incompetency is brought to the attention of the trial court from any source, the court must conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether or not there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46.02 § 2(b) (Vernon Supp.2004). A trial court must conduct a non-jury hearing, known as a "section 2" inquiry, on whether to hold a jury trial on the defendant's incompetency if evidence of the defendant's incompetency is brought to the attention of the court from any source. McDaniel v. State, 98 S.W.3d 704, 710 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). A section 2, or "competency," inquiry is required only if the evidence brought to the judge's attention raises a bona-fide doubt in the judge's mind about the defendant's competency to stand trial. Id. Evidence is usually sufficient to create a bona-fide doubt if it shows recent, severe mental illness, at least moderate retardation, or truly bizarre acts by the defendant. Id. When such a bona-fide doubt does exist, the court must conduct the section 2 competency inquiry to determine whether there is "some evidence" to support a finding of incompetency, and, if so, to commence a section 4 competency hearing before a jury. Id.; see Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46.02 § 4 (Vernon Supp.2004).

Accordingly, (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 and is (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 section 2 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 section 4 competency hearing. McDaniel, 98 S.W.3d at 710-11. The requirements of each step must be fulfilled before the next step becomes applicable. Id. The naked assertion, "I am incompetent," unsupported by any facts or evidence, is not sufficient, by itself, to require either a competency inquiry under section 2 or a competency hearing before a jury under section 4. Id. at 711.

Evidence capable of creating a bona-fide doubt about a defendant's competency may come from the trial court's own observations, known facts, evidence presented, motions, affidavits, or any other claim or credible source. Brown v. State, 960 S.W.2d 772, 774 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). If the evidence presented warrants a competency hearing, and the trial court denies such a hearing, the defendant is deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385, 86 S.Ct. 836, 842, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). "The conviction of an accused person while he is legally incompetent violates due process." 383 U.S. at 378, 86 S.Ct. at 838.¹

During the punishment phase of appellant's trial, testimonial and documentary evidence revealed appellant's history of mental and behavioral problems from 1995 to 2001, including serious mental health issues before 1998. Evidence also established that appellant, who could not remember the events of the aggravated robbery, had been depressed, diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and had been treated with various medications.

No evidence, however, from any source during the trial documented any present or recent clinical proof of appellant's incompetency during 2002, the year in which the trial was held. Appellant's previous mental and behavioral impairments, his inability to recall past events, his inability to recall the circumstances of his charged offense, his mental status at the time of his charged offense, and his depression do not establish the required elements of incompetency concerning his present ability to consult with his counsel with a reasonable degree of understanding, and a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him. See Rice v....