IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00032-CV

IN RE THE COMMITMENT OF DAVID MACH LANDECK

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-22-53995

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State of Texas filed a petition to civilly commit David Mach Landeck as a 

sexually-violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (“the Act”). See TEX.

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 841.001-.209. A jury found beyond a reasonable doubt 

that Landeck is a sexually-violent predator. Id. at § 841.003. The trial court entered a final 

judgment and order of civil commitment under the Act. See id. at § 841.081. On appeal, 

Landeck challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence as to the “behavioral 
In re The Commitment of Landeck Page 2

abnormality” element of the jury’s sexually-violent-predator finding.1 See id. at § 

841.003(a)(2).

STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW

Proceedings under the Act are civil in nature, but because the State’s burden of 

proof at trial is the same as in a criminal case, we review verdicts in cases brought under 

the Act using the standard of review applied in criminal cases. In re Commitment of 

Stuteville, 463 S.W.3d 543, 551 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied). When 

reviewing a legal-sufficiency challenge to the evidence in a sexually-violent-predator 

case, we assess all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine 

whether a rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements that 

the State must prove to support a judgment of civil commitment. In re Commitment of 

H.L.T., 549 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. App.—Waco 2017, pet. denied) (citing In re Commitment 

of Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 881, 885 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, pet. denied)).

As defined in the Act, a sexually-violent predator is a person who “(1) is a repeat 

sexually violent offender; and (2) suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes the 

person likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.” TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY 

CODE ANN. § 841.003(a). A person is a “repeat sexually violent offender” if he has been 

1 The jury charge included the statutory definitions for “sexually violent predator,” “repeat sexually violent 

offender,” “behavioral abnormality,” “predatory act,” and “sexually violent offense.” See TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE §§ 841.002(2), 841.002(5), 841.002(6), 841.002(8), 841.003(a), 841.003(b). The jury was only 

required to answer one question – “Do you find beyond a reasonable doubt that DAVID MACH LANDECK 

is a sexually violent predator?”
In re The Commitment of Landeck Page 3

convicted of more than one sexually-violent offense and a sentence was imposed for at 

least one of the offenses. Id. at § 841.003(b). Regarding the second element, a “behavioral 

abnormality” is defined as “a congenital or acquired condition that, by affecting a 

person’s emotional or volitional capacity, predisposes the person to commit a sexually 

violent offense, to the extent that the person becomes a menace to the health and safety 

of another person.” Id. at § 841.002(2).

DISCUSSION

The record reflects that Landeck was convicted of: (1) Aggravated Sexual Assault 

with a Deadly Weapon in Bell County, Texas on December 15, 1987 and sentenced to life 

in prison; (2) Aggravated Sexual Assault in Coryell County, Texas on January 26, 1988 

and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison; and (3) Aggravated Sexual Assault of a 

Child in McLennan County, Texas and sentenced to fifty years in prison. See TEX. PENAL 

CODE ANN. §§ 22.021. Each of these offenses are “sexually violent offenses” as defined in 

the Act. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 841.002(8)(A). Landeck does not contest the 

legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the implied jury finding that he is a repeat 

sexually violent offender.

Landeck’s legal insufficiency argument centers around his proffered formula –

“sexual deviancy + antisociality = behavioral abnormality.” He contends that the State’s 

failure to offer sufficient “’proof of dangerousness’ – i.e., antisociality” in conjunction 

with his pedophilia diagnosis is fatal to the jury’s implied finding that he suffers from a 
In re The Commitment of Landeck Page 4

behavioral abnormality. To support his position, he cites to several cases that note how

the combination of sexual deviancy and antisociality creates a significant risk for 

sexually-violent recidivism. However, the cited cases do not stand for the proposition 

that the Act – or due process – necessitate both antisociality and sexual deviancy to 

support a finding of a behavioral abnormality. A medical diagnosis of a person’s mental 

health, though informative in a behavioral-abnormality assessment, is not required. See 

In re Commitment of Bohannan, 388 S.W.3d 296, 306 (Tex. 2012). “[T]he principal issue in a 

commitment proceeding is not a person’s mental health but whether he is predisposed to 

sexually violent conduct.” Id. The Act specifically defines “behavioral abnormality,” and 

it is within the confines of the statutory definition that we review whether legally 

sufficient evidence exists to support the jury’s verdict. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE

ANN. § 841.002(2); see also In re Commitment of Stoddard, 619 S.W.3d 665, 678 (Tex. 2020) 

(finding error in the appellate court’s factual sufficiency analysis where the appellate 

court required proof of more than the two statutorily-required elements under the Act).

At trial, the State presented testimony from Dr. Antoinette McGarrahan, a forensic 

psychologist who evaluated Landeck and determined, in her professional opinion, that 

Landeck has a behavioral abnormality as defined by the Act. McGarrahan diagnosed 

Landeck with pedophilic disorder – “intense, sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or 

behaviors that involve prepubescent children” – which she described as a congenital or 

acquired condition. His condition, she explained, affects Landeck’s emotional and 
In re The Commitment of Landeck Page 5

volitional capacity by causing difficulty in controlling his urges to engage in repetitive 

sexual contact with children. Relative to his predisposition to commit a sexually-violent 

offense, McGarrahan testified that Landeck’s sexual deviancy, which she described as 

one of the strongest risk factors for engaging in future sex-offending behavior, was the 

primary factor in her behavior-abnormality determination. She defined “sexual 

deviancy” as sexual fantasies, urges, and behaviors not condoned by society, and further 

described Landeck’s sexual deviancy as “quite engrained [sic]” and “quite intense.” 

McGarrahan noted particular concern for Landeck’s “persistence after punishment” as 

an indicator of the strength of his sexual deviancy. She also testified that she believed 

Landeck continues to be a menace to the health and safety of others due to his chronic 

pedophilic condition, lack of insight into his sexual deviance, and inability to monitor 

and control his own behaviors. Though not required for a finding of behavioral 

abnormality, McGarrahan also provided some evidence of Landeck’s “antisociality.” She 

testified that Landeck “certainly has antisocial beliefs and behaviors,” though they did 

not warrant a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy. As a result of 

her evaluation, McGarrahan found Landeck to be at an “above average risk” to sexually 

reoffend.

Landeck also testified at trial. He admitted that he was convicted of the three 

sexually-violent offenses described above and discussed his history involving 

accusations, investigations, arrests, charges, and convictions related to sexual contact 
In re The Commitment of Landeck Page 6

with minor children. Regarding the Bell County offense, Landeck agreed that it occurred 

in March of 1985 and involved an 11-year-old girl who was a stranger to him. He was 

found guilty after a trial but maintained that he did not commit this offense. Landeck 

was then questioned in July of 1986 as a suspect for a sexual assault against a 12-year-old 

girl, and he agreed that after being questioned about this offense, he was aware that he 

was “on [law enforcement’s] radar.” His McLennan County offense, which involved a 9-

year-old girl who was a stranger to him, occurred in August of 1986 – just one month 

after he was questioned by law enforcement. He was found guilty after a trial but 

maintained that he also did not commit this offense. The Coryell County conviction is 

the only conviction that Landeck agreed was valid, though he disagreed with the events 

as described by the State. According to Landeck, this offense occurred in November of 

1986 and involved a 15-year-old girl. Landeck testified that the 15-year-old was not a 

stranger to him, but he was unaware that she was minor. He admitted that the 15-yearold got into his car and that he drove her to a secluded area, but he denied putting a knife 

to her throat as she alleged. Landeck explained that what started out as a consensual 

encounter became nonconsensual when the 15-year-old told him to stop. He admitted 

that he did not stop when requested because “the way we was raised, if you start having 

sex, you finish having sex. She was willing at first.” Landeck testified that he now 

understood that continuing to have sex with her after she told him to stop was wrong. 
In re The Commitment of Landeck Page 7

The State also questioned Landeck about past accusations of inappropriate contact 

with minors that allegedly occurred while he was on bond. When questioned about 

“spend[ing] time hanging out at a park with minors across the street from a police 

station,” Landeck explained he would stop at the park to cool off his overheated vehicle. 

However, he denied the State’s accusations that he spent time with minor children or 

exposed his genitals to a 12-year-old child there. Landeck admitted that while he was on 

bond, he was arrested for the offenses of solicitation of a minor and aggravated 

kidnapping out of Bell County, Texas. On the stand, he denied committing the acts 

underlying those charges and disagreed with the State that he previously admitted guilt 

to those offenses as part of his Coryell County plea agreement on his Aggravated Sexual 

Assault with a Deadly Weapon conviction. Landeck testified that he does not have a 

deviant sexual attraction to children, he does not believe he needs to stay away from 

children, and he does not need sex-offender treatment due to his age and lack of sex drive. 

He also stated that the four-month sex-offender program he completed while 

incarcerated helped him with his decision-making skills, and he does not currently have 

any sexual interest that he is unable to control.

As sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence, the jury could 

reasonably conclude that Landeck suffers from a behavioral abnormality - a congenital 

or acquired condition that affects his emotional or volitional capacity and predisposes 

him to commit a sexually violent offense, to the extent that he is a menace to the health 
In re The Commitment of Landeck Page 8

and safety of another person - that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual 

violence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury 

could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Landeck is a sexually violent predator.

We overrule Landeck’s sole issue on appeal.

Conclusion

Having overruled Landeck’s sole issue on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court.

STEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed July 25, 2024

[CV06]