Lahood v. State

• Decision Date: 09 August 2005
• Docket Number: No. 14-04-00442-CR.,No. 14-04-00443-CR.,14-04-00442-CR.,14-04-00443-CR.
• Citation: 171 S.W.3d 613
• Parties: Michael George LaHOOD, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

171 S.W.3d 613

Michael George LaHOOD, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 14-04-00442-CR.

No. 14-04-00443-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

August 9, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Lana Gordon, Houston, for appellant.

Carol M. Cameron, Houston, TX, for appellee.

Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices FOWLER and FROST.

OPINION

ADELE HEDGES, Chief Justice.

Appellant, Michael LaHood, appeals from his convictions for aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault. After finding him guilty, the jury assessed punishment at thirty years' imprisonment. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in (1) failing to sua sponte conduct an inquiry into his competency to stand trial, (2) permitting the prosecutor to impeach his testimony with felony convictions that were more than ten years old, and (3) refusing to allow defense counsel to ask the complainant about her most recent drug use. Appellant further argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to (1) request an inquiry into his competency, (2) request a jury submission on the doctrine of release to a safe place, and (3) object to improper jury argument. We affirm.

I. Background

Complainant, Shelly Boyd Mitchell, testified that she and appellant began living together in Aransas Pass in August 2003. She said that they spent their time fishing and taking illegal drugs and that they shoplifted and borrowed money when they needed things.

In September 2003, they discussed leaving Aransas Pass, but Mitchell told appellant she did not think it was a good idea. One day, appellant packed Mitchell's car with fishing gear and dirty clothes, leading Mitchell to believe they were going to fish and wash laundry. When she realized appellant intended to take her out of town, Mitchell told him that she did not want to go, and he replied that "it wasn't a question of whether [she] wanted to or not. [She] was going." As they drove, she insisted that she wanted out of the car, but he wouldn't stop and became very angry. She tried to open the door and get out while the car was moving, but he pulled her back. She tried several more times to get out of the car, but he told her that he would kill her if she didn't "mind" him. Appellant made various threats to Mitchell, including that he would cut her throat, beat her beyond recognition, and cut her tattoos out so that no one would recognize her. Appellant physically attacked Mitchell by pulling her hair, beating her head into the car's console, biting her arms, and choking her. Mitchell was terrified and believed that appellant would carry out some of these threats. She said that he had a knife with him. She made several more attempts to escape, including by putting the car in park, trying to take the keys, trying to climb out the window, and telling him to pull over. Near Wharton, appellant stopped the car, gave Mitchell some pills, tied her wrists together, and told her to go to sleep.

Appellant told Mitchell that they were going to get "good dope." She testified that at this point she was sick and tired, and she told him she didn't want any "dope." Once they arrived in Houston, appellant stopped in a parking lot, made Mitchell lie down in the back seat, and tied her ankles together. Mitchell said that she felt like she could have gotten out of the car at that time but that she couldn't have gotten away because she was not familiar with the Houston area. Appellant then drove to another parking lot and sexually assaulted her. Afterwards, appellant fell asleep next to Mitchell in the back seat of the car. She later woke appellant, and they checked into a motel room. They made several trips to buy alcohol and drugs. At one point, when they exited the motel room to go buy drugs, they saw a police car near the motel, and appellant and Mitchell hurried back inside the room. When appellant and Mitchell later got in their vehicle to drive away, police pulled them over because of a faulty inspection sticker. Mitchell told the officers that she had been kidnapped, and appellant was arrested.

II. Inquiry into Competency

In his first issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte inquire into his competency to stand trial because he had a history of mental illness, made outbursts during trial, and complained that he had not received his medication and had difficulty understanding the proceedings. We review a trial court's failure to conduct a competency inquiry under an abuse of discretion standard. 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 proven incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.003(b) (Vernon Supp.2004-05). A defendant 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) rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Id. art. 46B.003(a).

If, during trial, evidence is brought to the attention of the trial court from any source raising a bona fide doubt as to the defendant's competency, the court must conduct an informal inquiry outside the jury's presence to determine whether there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial. Id. art. 46B.004; McDaniel v. State, 98 S.W.3d 704, 710 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). In the inquiry, the court must determine whether there is "some evidence" to support a finding of incompetency, and, if the court so finds, it must then commence a hearing before a jury. McDaniel, 98 S.W.3d at 710; see also TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 46B.005(b), 46B.051. The requirements of each step must be fulfilled before the next step becomes applicable. McDaniel, 98 S.W.3d at 710-11. The naked assertion, "I am incompetent," is not sufficient without supporting evidence to require either an inquiry by the court or a hearing before a jury. 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, 129 S.W.3d 762, 765 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). 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. McDaniel, 98 S.W.3d at 710. If evidence warrants a competency hearing, and the trial court denies such a hearing, the defendant is deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial. See Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966).

Appellant contends that he made in-court statements that constituted evidence of his incompetency to stand trial. Appellant testified on four consecutive days. He does not reference any statements he made on the first day. Indeed, on this first day of testimony he was responsive, remembered details, and spoke intelligibly. On the second day, before the jury entered the courtroom, appellant said "I need my medicine." When his testimony began, appellant said that he did not get his "psych meds again today" and that he was having trouble understanding things. Appellant then testified without any problems for a period of time before stating "I need my medication. . . . I am so uncomfortable. I'm seeing the lights blink. I take medication for manic depression, schizophrenia. . . . I haven't had it. This is not right." The judge excused the jury and recessed the proceedings for the day.

Before the jury entered the courtroom on appellant's third day of testimony, he complained to the judge that someone he wanted subpoenaed had not been subpoenaed, and he claimed he was "getting railroaded." Once the jury was brought in, appellant again testified without any apparent difficulty. In response to defense counsel's questioning, appellant explained that he had difficulty testifying on the prior day because he had not been given his medication. He described his conditions and medication in some detail, and explained that he was much calmer on that day because he had received his medications the night before.¹ Later that day, during the prosecutor's closing argument, appellant made several brief interjections, which drew neither an objection from the prosecutor nor an admonishment from the trial judge.

The trial moved into the punishment phase on the fourth day. When a witness was asked about another witness's drug use, appellant interrupted, "Shelley [complainant] is using drugs right now." Shortly thereafter, the prosecutor asked the witness "How many mistakes does he get to make? . . . How many assaults does he get to . . . commit before we say enough?" Appellant again interrupted, "Not guilty. Outright lie. . . . Find me in contempt. It's a lie." The jury was removed from the courtroom, and the judge and the witness calmed appellant down. When the jury returned, appellant testified regarding his emotional problems, prescription medications, and substance abuse problems.

The fact that appellant made outbursts during trial is not evidence of an inability to communicate with counsel or to appreciate the proceedings against him. Moore, 999 S.W.2d at 395. Although inappropriate, the outbursts were immediate and logical responses to statements made or questions asked during trial. Id. If such actions were enough to demonstrate incompetency, a defendant could easily avoid prosecution through immature behavior. Id. Similarly, the fact that he may have been on psychiatric medication during trial and had a history of mental problems did not mandate a competency inquiry absent evidence of a present inability to communicate or understand the proceedings. See id. at 395-96.

The only time...