Ybarra v. State, No. 13-07-00505-CR (Tex. App. 8/24/2009)
| Decision Date | 24 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-07-00505-CR.,13-07-00505-CR. |
| Parties | ISRAEL YBARRA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas.
Before Justices YAÑEZ, RODRIGUEZ, and BENAVIDES.
A jury convicted appellant Israel Ybarra of arson, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years' confinement. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.02 (Vernon Supp. 2008). By three issues, Ybarra contends: (1) the trial court violated his due process rights by denying his request for a jury trial to determine his competency; (2) the jury's rejection of his insanity defense was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence; and (3) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
On or about the night of June 29, 2006, Ybarra set fire to a couch cushion in his trailer. The trailer caught on fire, and residents of the trailer park called 9-1-1 to notify the fire department and police. When the first police officer arrived, he found the trailer engulfed in flames and Ybarra coughing on his hands and knees in front of the burning trailer. Ybarra provided several different stories to police regarding the fire, including that a gang had started the fire in retaliation against Ybarra and that Ybarra himself had started the fire to kill himself because he believed his wife and children had left him.
On October 26, 2006, Ybarra was indicted for arson, specifically that "with intent to damage or destroy a habitation" Ybarra "start[ed] a fire, or cause[d] an explosion, by igniting a fire on a [couch] cushion . . . knowing that said habitation was within the limits of an incorporated city or town, namely, the city of Rockport, Texas." See id. 28.02(a)(2)(A). Ybarra filed pretrial motions, including, among others, a motion suggesting incompetency and request for examination, in which Ybarra asked the court to appoint a disinterested expert to explore the issue of incompetency. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.021(a)(1) (Vernon 2006). In an affidavit in support of his suggestion of incompetency, counsel for Ybarra stated that Ybarra is mentally disabled, "has a long history of suicidal [sic] attempts," has problems with comprehension, reasoning, and judgment, and was not able to communicate effectively with counsel concerning any possible defenses.
On December 28, 2006, the trial court held a pretrial hearing on Ybarra's request for examination. At the pretrial hearing, Ybarra's wife, Christina Diaz Ybarra, testified that she had known Ybarra for twenty-one years and that he had been under psychiatric care and receiving Social Security benefits since he was seventeen. According to his wife, Ybarra has the mind of an eight-year-old, is bipolar and schizophrenic, and suffers from depression. The trial court granted Ybarra's request for an examination on the issue of competency and appointed Burton A. Kittay, Ph.D., to conduct the examination.
Dr. Kittay interviewed Ybarra and performed various psychological tests. Dr. Kittay also spoke with the guards and nurses at the jail where Ybarra was being held. In his report to the court, Dr. Kittay observed that, although Ybarra claimed he did not understand why he was in jail, he expressed remorse over his actions and stated he knew he was arrested for arson. Dr. Kittay also found that Ybarra had the ability to effectively communicate with his attorney and understand the adversarial nature of the proceedings against him but chose not to do so. Dr. Kittay believed that Ybarra was being purposefully uncooperative and attempting to manage the information he gave to Dr. Kittay to show he was incompetent. In his report, Dr. Kittay concluded that Ybarra was competent to stand trial.
On February 20, 2007, the trial court appointed Christopher L. Klass, Ph.D., to conduct a second examination of Ybarra. The trial court's basis for ordering the second examination is not apparent from the record. Dr. Klass interviewed Ybarra and conducted various psychological tests. In his report, Dr. Klass noted that Ybarra had substance-induced major depressive disorder. However, Dr. Klass found that Ybarra had the presence of mind to assist his attorney and could rationally understand the charges, potential consequences, and adversarial nature of the proceedings. Dr. Klass concluded that Ybarra was competent to stand trial. Dr. Klass then proceeded to conclude that Ybarra was legally insane; he determined that Ybarra's mental state was compromised by his psychiatric disorder such that he did not know his conduct was wrong at the time of the fire.
At the announcement docket on March 15, 2007, the State requested a psychiatric examination on the issue of insanity. The trial court appointed Joel Kutnick, M.D., to conduct a mental examination of Ybarra. As the basis of his report, Dr. Kutnick: interviewed Ybarra; reviewed the evaluations conducted by Dr. Kittay and Dr. Klass; reviewed police offense reports, witness statements, and Ybarra's voluntary statement; and discussed the case with the assistant district attorney. In his report, Dr. Kutnick observed that Ybarra changed his story at least twice regarding how and why the trailer was burned down. Dr. Kutnick found that Ybarra potentially suffered from several different mental disorders, including substance dependence, schizoaffective disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and malingering.1 Dr. Kutnick believed that Ybarra's mental processes were logical and goal-directed, that he was oriented to person, place, and time, and that he was able to communicate well. Dr. Kutnick concluded that, even if Ybarra experienced the hallucinations and other delusions he claimed, he nonetheless understood that setting fire to the trailer was against the law. Dr. Kutnick further concluded that Ybarra had no mental disease or defect that rendered him incapable of knowing his conduct was wrong.
At an announcement docket on April 24, 2007, Ybarra's counsel requested a trial by jury on the issue of competency. The trial court asked counsel to provide evidence supporting Ybarra's request. Counsel replied that, after talking to Ybarra on at least two or three occasions, she had concluded that he could not "help [counsel] with any of the facts or anything, any of the events that happened on the day of the incident of arson." Counsel stated, "I just feel that he is not being [sic] able to assist me in any way in trying to build up a defense to the charge." The trial court concluded that the issue of incompetence had been resolved stating, "I don't think there is an issue of incompetency." The trial court denied Ybarra's request.
When Ybarra's case was called for trial on July 16, 2007, trial counsel objected that Ybarra was not able to assist her in preparation of his case. Trial counsel stated that she believed that Ybarra was not competent to stand trial. Although acknowledging that none of the experts that examined Ybarra had the professional opinion that he was incompetent to stand trial, trial counsel asserted that, based on her personal assessment, Ybarra was incompetent "due to the fact he's not assisting me in any way." After questioning Ybarra about his background and the case against him, the trial court denied counsel's request for a trial on the issue of competency. After a two-day trial, the jury found Ybarra guilty of arson, and the trial court sentenced him to 20 years' confinement. This appeal ensued.
Ybarra disputes his conviction by three issues. First, Ybarra argues his due process rights were violated when the trial court refused to hold a jury trial on the issue of his competency. Second, Ybarra contends that the evidence was factually insufficient to support the jury's rejection of his insanity affirmative defense. Finally, Ybarra challenges the evidence of his arson conviction as both legally and factually insufficient.
By his first issue, Ybarra contends that the trial court denied him due process by refusing to order a jury trial on the issue of his competence to stand trial.
A trial court's failure to conduct a competency hearing or inquiry is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Salahud-Din v. State, 206 S.W.3d 203, 207 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2006, pet. ref'd) (citing Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385, 393 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)). We will find an abuse of discretion if the trial court's decision is arbitrary or unreasonable. Lawrence v. State, 169 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref'd).
"The conviction of an accused person while he is legally incompetent violates due process." Salahud-Din, 206 S.W.3d at 207. Under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, "[a] person is incompetent to stand trial if the person does not have: (1) sufficient present ability to consult with the person's lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or (2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against the person." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.003(a) (Vernon 2006). A defendant is presumed competent, and the trial court shall find him competent, unless he is proved incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. art. 46B.003(b).
"Either party may suggest by motion . . . that the defendant" may not be competent to stand trial. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.004(a) (Vernon 2006). Upon such a suggestion, "the court may appoint one or more disinterested experts to . . . examine the defendant and report to the court on the competency or incompetency of the defendant . . . ." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.021(a)(1). If the evidence presented raises a bona fide doubt as to the defendant's competency, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial