### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-09-00168- CR

P aul Dougl as Massoth, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 612 85, H ONO RAB LE JO E CARROLL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Paul Doug las M assot h was place d on defe rre d adjudication community supervision afte r he pleade d g uilty to possessing less than one g ram of methamphetamine. See Tex. Hea lth & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West Supp. 2009). One y ear later, appellant pleade d true to most of the violations alleg ed in the State’s m o t i o n to adjudicate , including use of methamphetamine, failure to repor t, and failure to pay fee s. The court adjudg ed him g uilty , assessed h i s punishment at two y ear s in state jail, and returne d him to community supervision. I n a single point of err or, appellant contends that the court err ed by failing to conduct an informal inquiry into his competenc e to stand trial. We over rule this contention and a ffirm the c onviction. A person is incompetent to stand trial if he does not have sufficie nt prese nt ability to consult with his lawy er with a reasonable deg ree of rational un d er s tanding , or i f he does not have

a rational and fac tual understanding of the proce eding s. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.003( a)(West 2006). I f a trial court has a bona fide doubt about the competenc e o f a d ef en d ant, it shall conduct an informal inquiry to deter mine if there is evidenc e that would support a finding of incompetenc e to stand trial. Id

. art. 4 6 B.004( c); Montoya v. State , 291 S.W .3d 420, 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) . A bona f ide doubt may

exis t if the defe ndant exhibi ts truly bizarre behavior or h as a rec ent history of sever e mental illness or at least modera te mental reta rdation. Mo n t o

ya , 291 S.W .3d at 425.

The rec ord ref

lects that appellant has been diag nosed with depre ssion, for which he has receive d psy chiatric t re at m ent. Appellant testi fied that his methamphetamine use was a form of self-me dication for his depre ssion. Appellant also ref ers us to a letter from a counselor who has trea ted appellant, introduced in e v id e n c e a t th e a d ju d ic a ti o n h ear ing, stating that appellant’ s chemica l depende ncy problems “ar e seconda ry to his psy chiatric problems” and that an y d rug trea tment prog ram “that does not addre ss the psy chiatric issues will be unproductive.” I n deter mining to return appellant to community supervision, the t rial court stated “we wi l l take y ou up on y our request to g et out and see if y ou can g et y ourself committed to a long term reha bilitation prog ram for drug s and for a lcohol as we ll as for menta l illness.”

The rec ord contains a copy of a psy cholog ical repor t prepa red by Dr. Eug ene Waters following an ev al u at i on of appellant, at the reque st of the community supervision depar tment,

o n e m o n t h b efore the hear ing. The repor t descr ibes appellant as “brig ht and articula te, self-c onfident, without any overt signs of psy chopatholog y .” The repor t mentions a “depr es s i v e underc urre nt

. . . that may have contributed to [appellant’s] substance ab u s e. ” The repor t also

rec ommends a drug reha

bilitation progra

m “that ca

n provide psy chiatric intervention.”

2A history of depre s s i o n requiring trea tment does not raise an issue of prese nt

incompetenc e absent evidenc e of rec ent sever e mental illness or bizarre acts. Id

. Appellant does not cite any such evidenc e. Our revie w of the rec ord shows that appellant testif i ed cl early and articula tely at the adjudication hear ing. He obviously understood the nature of the proce eding , and he made an eff

ective case for rema ining on community supervision. Appellant’s attorney at the hear ing did not mention having any difficulty consulting w ith him. The re cord is devoid of any evidenc e that appellant was incompetent at the he aring b el o w. T h e trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to conduct an informal inqui ry . T h e point of err or is overr

uled. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Affir med Filed: May

25, 2010 Do Not PublishMay

3