Ramsey v. State, 57280
| Decision Date | 29 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 57280,No. 2,57280,2 |
| Citation | 563 S.W.2d 616 |
| Parties | Ricky Dale RAMSEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Michael L. McLeaish, Odessa, for appellant.
Before ONION, P. J., and DOUGLAS and ODOM, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated rape, wherein the punishment was assessed by the jury at forty-five (45) years' confinement in the Department of Corrections.
On appeal appellant, in a single ground of error, urges that the trial court "erred in its failure to conduct a pre-trial hearing to determine competency to stand trial after the Defendant made a timely request for a preliminary hearing on his competency to stand trial."
The offense was shown to have occurred on April 7, 1975. The trial commenced on August 10, 1976. On that date, and prior to the voir dire examination of the jury panel, appellant's counsel stated to the court that he had filed a motion for a pre-trial determination of the appellant's competency to stand trial as in his opinion the appellant was not capable of making rational decisions or to aid his counsel in the preparation and conduct of his defense. 1 The court determined that the day of the trial was the first time appellant had urged the motion and overruled it. The colloquy between the court and the attorney revealed that the court had ordered a psychiatric examination of the appellant in April, 1975 and that since that time no question had been raised by the defense until the day of the trial.
After the jury was selected, then the appellant entered a plea of guilty and was admonished by the trial court. The court in its charge instructed the jury in part that the appellant had been admonished and then added:
There was no objection to the court's charge.
The formal judgment entered and found in this record, without objection, reflects in part:
". . . and the said Defendant persisted in his plea; and it plainly appearing to the Court that the Defendant is sane and that he is uninfluenced in making said plea . . . ." (Emphasis added.)
Appellant cites and relies on Vardas v. State, 488 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Ainsworth v. State, 493 S.W.2d 517 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), and Bonner v. State, 520 S.W.2d 901 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). In Vardas the court reversed the conviction stating, "Even where no request or demand is made for a preliminary hearing but evidence as to the accused's present incompetence becomes sufficiently manifest during the trial on the merits, then due process of law would require the trial judge to halt the trial and conduct a hearing on that issue on his own initiative before proceeding further." In Ainsworth, the court quoted from Vardas with approval, but noted the court stopped and, after an inquiry, determined that an issue of competency to stand trial was not raised. The record supported the court's determination. The conviction was affirmed. In Bonner it was held that even if evidence at trial sufficiently raised the issue of defendant's competency, where the trial judge, after further inquiry and discussion, determined that a competency hearing was not necessary and defendant did not object to such determination but instead withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a guilty plea, defendant could not raise on appeal the issue of whether a separate competency hearing should have been held.
In the instant case appellant claims to have filed a written motion for a pre-trial hearing on competency, but as earlier observed, there is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barber v. State, 68905
...... 4 See § 2(b) of Article 46.02. See . Page 828 . also Ramsey v. State, 563 S.W.2d 616, 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). And in Garcia v. State, 595 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), also extant at the time of the ......
-
Sisco v. State
...the question for the trial court is whether with respect to incompetency there is "any" evidence or "no" evidence. Ramsey v. State, 563 S.W.2d 616, 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) recognized the new standard: ". . . no hearing is required unless the court determines there is evidence to support a fin......
-
Thompson v. State
...to this trial. We find no error by the court in failing to conduct a pretrial competency hearing under these facts. See Ramsey v. State, 563 S.W.2d 616 (Tex.Cr.App.). Appellant further asserts that evidence of his incompetency came to the court's attention during trial. We have reviewed all......
-
Vigneault v. State
...of appellant's competence at the time of trial as discussed above, and we so hold. Article 46.02, § 2(a), supra; Ramsey v. State, 563 S.W.2d 616 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Williams v. State, supra. This first ground of error is Next, appellant complains of the failure of the trial court to grant hi......