“We have held that instances of depression are not an indication of incompetency and that past mental-health issues raise the issue of incompetency only if there is evidence of recent severe mental illness, at least moderate retardation, or bizarre acts by the defendant.”
How later courts described this case
- “We have held that instances of depression are not an indication of incompetency and that past mental-health issues raise the issue of incompetency only if there is evidence of recent severe mental illness, at least moderate retardation, or bizarre acts by the defendant.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Opinion issued October 11, 2012.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NOS. 01-12-00124-CR, 01-12-00125-CR
———————————
MICHAEL BILL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 351st Judicial District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 1199463 & 1301605
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Michael Bill, without an agreed punishment recommendation
from the State, pleaded guilty to the offenses of sexual assault of a child1 and
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011 (Vernon 2011); trial cause no. 1199463;
appellate cause no. 01–12–00124–CR.
aggravated sexual assault of a child.2 The trial court assessed his punishment at
confinement for twenty years for the sexual assault offense and life for the
aggravated sexual assault offense, with the sentences to run consecutively. In his
sole issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred in not conducting, sua
sponte, an informal inquiry into his competency.
We affirm.
Background
A Harris County Grand Jury issued two true bills of indictment, accusing
appellant of committing the offenses of sexual assault of a child on June 20, 2008
and aggravated sexual assault of a child on January 8, 2009. In his plea documents
entered in both cases, appellant stated that he understood the allegations, was
satisfied with his attorney’s representation, and had fully discussed the cases with
his attorney. Appellant’s attorney signed the plea documents, representing that he
believed that appellant was “competent to stand trial” and appellant entered his
pleas knowingly and voluntarily. Appellant’s attorney also represented that he had
fully discussed the cases with appellant. The trial court, in signing the plea
documents, stated that it had ascertained that appellant entered the pleas knowingly
2
See id. § 22.021 (Vernon Supp. 2012); trial cause no. 1301605; appellate cause no.
01–12–00125–CR.
2
and voluntarily, discussed the pleas with his attorney, and appeared “mentally
competent.”
Appellant also signed written admonishments, representing that he was
mentally competent and understood the accusations and nature of the proceedings.
Appellant, by signing the admonishments, further agreed that he was freely and
voluntarily pleading guilty to the accusations and understood the admonishments
and consequences of his pleas. At the hearing in which he entered his guilty pleas,
appellant stated that he had never been declared insane, mentally incompetent, or
mentally ill. Appellant’s attorney also stated on the record during the hearing that
appellant was of sound mind and competent to enter his pleas.
Pursuant to appellant’s request, following the plea hearing, a pre-sentence
investigation (“PSI”) report was prepared. The PSI report, which the trial court
admitted into evidence, stated that appellant had reported that he had never sought
or received a psychiatric or psychological evaluation or any such counseling or
treatment. In a mental health questionnaire attached to the PSI report, appellant
stated that he was not undergoing current mental health treatment and had not
undergone previous mental health treatment. Appellant also stated that he had no
history of psychiatric hospitalizations or hallucinations. Nor did he have any
family history of mental illness. Appellant further stated that he would not benefit
from the receipt of mental health services.
3
A forensic psychiatric evaluation report authored by Dr. Mark Moeller was
attached to the PSI report. In his report, Dr. Moeller stated that he was asked to
perform an evaluation of appellant by appellant’s attorney “for the purpose of
defense mitigation.” In the report, Dr. Moeller noted that after explaining the
evaluation to appellant, appellant stated that he understood the purpose of the
evaluation, and he agreed to proceed. In a section of his report entitled “Mental
Status Examination,” Dr. Moeller stated that he had evaluated appellant for two
hours. Dr. Moeller noted that although appellant was “disheveled and poorly
groomed,” he was “fairly articulate” and there “were no communication
difficulties.” Appellant “made poor eye contact and appeared depressed,” but he
“denied having any hallucinations,” and he was “not delusional.” Appellant did
report that he had “occasional nightmares and intrusive recollections” concerning
relatives that had been killed in front of him when he lived in Africa. But he
“denied ever being suicidal or homicidal,” and his “fund of knowledge was intact
and his insight and understanding about his legal situation was intact.”
In the summary section of his report, Dr. Moeller noted that appellant had
been “born and raised in a chaotic and dangerous environment” and had “suffered
extreme deprivation most of his life.” He further noted that appellant “suffers with
aspects of PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) caused by near-death
experiences in war-torn Africa,” from where appellant had immigrated. Dr.
4
Moeller diagnosed appellant with “PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder)-
chronic.”
In its judgments, the trial court again recited that appellant appeared
competent, entered his pleas freely and voluntarily, and was aware of the
consequences of his pleas.
Competency
In his sole issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred in not conducting,
sua sponte, an informal inquiry into his competency because his competency “was
called into question by the PSI report.” Appellant asserts that it is “self evident
that post-traumatic stress disorder” is “evidence of severe mental illness.”
We review a complaint that a trial court erred in not conducting an informal
competency inquiry for an abuse of discretion. Montoya v. State, 291 S.W.3d 420,
426 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Hobbs v. State, 359 S.W.3d 919, 924 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.). We determine whether the trial court’s
decision was arbitrary or unreasonable. Montoya, 291 S.W.3d at 426.
A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial, and he shall be found
competent to stand trial unless proved incompetent by a preponderance of the
evidence. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.003(b) (Vernon Supp. 2012). A
defendant is incompetent to stand trial if he does not have sufficient present ability
to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or a
5
rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Id. art.
46B.003(a); see Montoya, 291 S.W.3d at 425. Either party may suggest by motion,
or the trial court may suggest on its own motion, that a defendant may be
incompetent to stand trial. Id. art. 46B.004(a) (Vernon Supp. 2012). On suggestion
that the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial, the trial court shall determine
by “informal inquiry” whether there is “some evidence” from any source that
would support a finding that the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial. Id.
art. 46B.004(c) (Vernon 2007).3
3
We note that article 46B.004 was amended, effective September 1, 2011, to add
subsection (c–1), which provides, in relevant part, that “A suggestion of
incompetency is the threshold requirement for an informal inquiry under
Subsection (c) and may consist solely of a representation from any credible source
that the defendant may be incompetent. A further evidentiary showing is not
required to initiate the inquiry, and the court is not required to have a bona fide
doubt about the competency of the defendant. . . .” See Acts of May 19, 2011,
82nd Leg., R.S., ch. 822, §§ 21(a), 22, 2011 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 1893, 1899–
1900 (codified at TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.004(c-l) (Vernon Supp.
2012)) (“Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the change in law
made by this Act applies only to a defendant with respect to whom any proceeding
under Chapter 46B, Code of Criminal Procedure, is conducted on or after the
effective date [Sept. 1, 2011] of this Act.”). Prior to this amendment, Texas
appellate courts had held that trial courts should conduct an informal inquiry to
determine if there is evidence that would support a finding of incompetence if they
had “a bona fide doubt about the competency of the defendant.” Montoya v. State,
291 S.W.3d 420, 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Appellate courts had further
explained that a bona fide doubt may exist if a defendant exhibits truly bizarre
behavior or has a recent history of severe mental illness or at least moderate
mental retardation. Id. Both the State and appellant cite us to the bona fide doubt
standard, and cases discussing that standard, as relevant to our analysis in
determining if the trial court erred in not conducting an informal inquiry.
6
There is nothing in the record before us to suggest that the trial court erred in
not conducting an informal inquiry into the issue of appellant’s competency.
Specifically, there is nothing in the record before us suggesting that appellant
lacked “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable
degree of rational understanding or a rational as well as factual understanding of
the proceedings against [him].” Id. art. 46B.003(a). In fact, the record before us
indicates that appellant was competent to enter his pleas prior to the trial court’s
sentencing. Appellant’s plea documents and admonishments reflect that he and his
attorney both represented that he was competent at the time he entered his pleas.
Moreover, the trial court found that appellant was competent and had entered his
pleas voluntarily. The reporter’s records from both the plea and sentencing
hearings do not contain any suggestion that appellant lacked the ability to consult
with his lawyer with a rational understanding or he lacked a rational and factual
understanding of the proceedings against him. Rather, the records reveal that
appellant appropriately responded to the trial court’s and his counsel’s questioning
during the proceedings. There is also no suggestion that appellant engaged in
abnormal or bizarre behavior during either hearing. Additionally, during these
proceedings, appellant’s attorney never complained that he could not effectively
communicate with appellant.
7
Contrary to appellant’s arguments, the fact that Dr. Moller diagnosed
appellant with PTSD did not, in itself, impose a duty upon the trial court to conduct
an informal inquiry. Although Dr. Moeller diagnosed appellant with PTSD, he did
not make any comments or suggestions that this diagnosis suggested
incompetency, as that term is defined. See id. art. 46B.003(a). Dr. Moeller’s
other statements throughout his report demonstrate that appellant was competent.
Dr. Moeller noted, among other things, that appellant was “fairly articulate” and
there “were no communication difficulties.” Although appellant “appeared
depressed,” Dr. Moeller stated that appellant was “not delusional” and his “fund of
knowledge was intact and his insight and understanding about his legal situation
was intact.” See Montoya, 291 S.W.3d at 425 (“We have held that instances of
depression are not an indication of incompetency and that past mental-health issues
raise the issue of incompetency only if there is evidence of recent severe mental
illness, at least moderate retardation, or bizarre acts by the defendant.”); Brown v.
State, No. 12-05-00237-CR, 2006 WL 1917735, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Tyler July
12, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication) (holding that
defendant’s testimony that he suffered from depression did not require trial court to
conduct informal inquiry into defendant’s competency, and noting that trial court
had “ample opportunity to see and hear [defendant] as he testified” and defendant
“did not engage in any outbursts or display any unusual thought patterns”).
8
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not
conducting an informal inquiry into appellant’s competency.
We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Terry Jennings
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
9