Purchase v. State, No. 01-99-00410-CR.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | Michael H. Schneider |
| Citation | 84 S.W.3d 696 |
| Parties | Samuel Reben PURCHASE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 11 July 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-99-00410-CR. |
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Page 697
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 698
Charles Freeman, Houston, for Appellant.
Eric Kugler, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Harris County, Houston, for State.
Panel consists of Chief Justice SCHNEIDER and Justices NUCHIA and RADACK.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, Chief Justice.
A jury found appellant, Samuel Reben Purchase, guilty of felony theft and assessed his punishment at four years probation. The court included a 60 day stay in county jail as one of the conditions of probation. Appellant raises four issues on appeal related to his competency to stand trial. We affirm.
Appellant opened an account under an assumed name with the Southwest Resource Credit Union in Baytown. Ten checks with a face value of over $44,000 were deposited into the account and over $40,000 was withdrawn during the 13 days the account was open. The checks were later shown to be counterfeit. Appellant was identified as the person who opened the account and made the transactions.
At trial, where the Honorable J.E. Blackburn presided, no request was made for a competency inquiry. After being convicted and sentenced, appellant filed a motion for new trial alleging that he had been legally incompetent to stand trial and that his counsel was ineffective. The Honorable Jay Burnett presided at the hearing on the motion. Appellant presented six witnesses, and appellant's trial counsel, who was then off the case, testified for the State. The court denied the motion.
In his first issue, appellant contends that the court erred by failing to conduct a retrospective hearing to determine whether there was evidence to support a finding that appellant was not competent to stand trial. He asks us to abate his appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for a retrospective determination of his competency to stand trial. Appellant, in his related second issue, contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial because he demonstrated he was incompetent to stand trial.
A defendant's due process right to a fair trial prevents the State from subjecting a person to trial when that person's "mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense." Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171, 95 S.Ct. 896, 903, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). A trial court must make inquiry into a criminal defendant's mental competence once the issue is sufficiently raised. Alcott v. State, 51 S.W.3d 596, 598-99 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385, 86 S.Ct. 836, 842, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966)).
A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC.
Page 699
ANN. art. 46.02, sec. 1A(b) (Vernon Supp. 2002). Article 46.02, section 2, states how the issue of incompetency to stand trial can be raised:
(a) The issue of the defendant's incompetency to stand trial shall be determined in advance of the trial on the merits if the court determines there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial on its own motion or on written motion by the defendant or his counsel filed prior to the date set for trial on the merits asserting that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. (b) If during the trial evidence of the defendant's incompetency is brought to the attention of the 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, sec. 2(b) (Vernon 1979). Section 2(b) was adopted by the Legislature in order to adequately guard the right to a fair trial where evidence of the defendant's incompetence is raised during trial. Alcott, 51 S.W.3d at 599 (emphasis in original). A trial court must conduct a competency inquiry sua sponte if evidence is presented at trial that raises a bona fide doubt as to the defendant's competency. Alcott, 51 S.W.3d at 601.
Competency to stand trial can also be challenged in a motion for new trial. Edwards v. State, 993 S.W.2d 171, 175-76 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, pet. ref'd); Brown v. State, 960 S.W.2d 772, 779 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd); cf: Ex parte Yarborough, 607 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. Crim.App.1980) (holding competency can be raised for the first time by post-trial writ of habeas corpus). When competency is challenged in a motion for new trial,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnett v. State , No. 06–10–00092–CR.
...to always investigate a defendant's psychiatric history to meet the effective-assistance-of-counsel standard.3 See Purchase v. State, 84 S.W.3d 696, 700–01 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd). Coyle stated that, although Barnett was difficult, counsel was not put on notice of an......
-
Amaya v. Davis, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-2834
...must always ask a defendant about his psychiatric history when there are no indicators of possible incompetency. Purchase v. State, 84 S.W.3d 696, 700-01 (Tex. App. - Houston [1stPage 14 Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd). In that case, Purchase was found guilty of felony theft. At the hearing on the......
-
Ervin v. State , No. 01–10–00054–CR.
...at 186. As an intermediate court of appeals, we are bound to follow the precedent of the court of criminal appeals. Purchase v. State, 84 S.W.3d 696, 701 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd); See Tex. Const. art. V, § 5(a) (court of criminal appeals is final authority for crimina......
-
Peraza v. State, NO. 01–12–00690–CR
...“just fade[ ] away”; instead, “unless there is some good reason for overruling them, they should not be disregarded”); Purchase v. State, 84 S.W.3d 696, 701 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (“[W]e are bound by the decisions of our state's highest criminal court.”). Second, we......
-
Barnett v. State , 06–10–00092–CR.
...to always investigate a defendant's psychiatric history to meet the effective-assistance-of-counsel standard.3 See Purchase v. State, 84 S.W.3d 696, 700–01 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd). Coyle stated that, although Barnett was difficult, counsel was not put on notice of an......
-
Amaya v. Davis, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-2834
...must always ask a defendant about his psychiatric history when there are no indicators of possible incompetency. Purchase v. State, 84 S.W.3d 696, 700-01 (Tex. App. - Houston [1stPage 14 Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd). In that case, Purchase was found guilty of felony theft. At the hearing on the......
-
Ervin v. State , 01–10–00054–CR.
...at 186. As an intermediate court of appeals, we are bound to follow the precedent of the court of criminal appeals. Purchase v. State, 84 S.W.3d 696, 701 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd); See Tex. Const. art. V, § 5(a) (court of criminal appeals is final authority for crimina......
-
Hill v. State, No. 2-06-094-CR (Tex. App. 3/22/2007), 2-06-094-CR.
...considers all the evidence presented, judges the credibility of witnesses, and resolves conflicts in the evidence. See Purchase v. State, 84 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd). We apply the abuse of discretion standard because, at this stage of the proceeding, ......