### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 01 54 -C R

______________________________ ARTI S J AMES GRAY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 188th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 35664-A

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Op ini on by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issT h e t r i a l c o urti mp o s e d p u n i s h m e n to f

t w e n t y ye ar s f

o r e a c h o f f e n s e , t o r u nc o n c u r r e n t l y. 1 2 O P I N I O N Ar tis Jame s G ra

y , de sc ri be d a s be ing " slo w" and " kin d of ha rd to p ic k u p o n s tuf f, " a dmi ts to h a vin g ha d sex with his thi rt e e n- y e ar- old c ou sin , who is al so c on sid e re d "s low ." Gr ay ple d guil ty to two counts of ag g ravated sexual assault of a child but, in two points of er ror on a ppeal, c omplains 1 of the trial c ourt' s failure to sua spo n t e conduct an informa l inquiry into Gray ' s competenc y

at the time it acce pted his g uilty plea and at t he ti me of Gra y ' s punishment hear ing. Be cause we hold that the tr ia l c ourt

ma de su ff

ic ie nt i nq uir y , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. ( 1) Competenc

y Ge nerally and Informal Inquiry into Competenc y W e r e v i e w fo r a nab u s e o f d i s cr et i o nt h e t o t al i t y o f t h e f ac t s s u rr o u n d i n g a t ri al co u rt 's implied decision not t o h o l d a competency inquiry

. Mo or e v . S

tat e , 9 9 9 S. W. 2 d

3 8 5 , 3 9 3 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); B i

g b y v . Stat e , 8 92 S.W. 2d

86 4, 88 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 94 ). A p e rs on is inc omp e te nt t o s ta

nd tr ia l if the pe rs on do e s no t have : ( 1) su ff ic ie nt p re se nt a

bil ity to c on su lt w ith the per son' s lawy er w ith a rea sonable de g ree of rational understanding ; or (2) a rational as well as fac tual understandingof the proc eeding s ag ainst the person. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt

. 46 B .0 03 (a ) ( Ve rn on

20 06 ); Fu lle r v . S

tat e , No. A P -7 4,980, 2008 Tex. Crim . App. L EXI S 567, at *1 2 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. Ap r. 30 , 2 00 8) ; Ed diev . S tat e , 100 S.W .3d 437, 443 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 20 03 , p e t. r e f' d) . Ade fe nd ant i s p re su me d c omp e te nt t o sta nd tr ia l and sh a ll b e fo un d c omp e te nt t o3

stand trial unless prove d incompetent by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 46B .003(b) ( Ver non 2006). I f evidenc e sug g esting the defe ndant may be incompetent to stand trial comes to the attention of the trial court, the court on its own motion shall sugg est that the def endant may

be incompete nt to stand trial. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 46B .004(b) ( Ver non 2006). On sug g estion that the defe ndant may

be incompete nt to stand trial, the court shall determine by informal inquiry

whether there is some evidence from any source that would support a finding that the def endant may

be incompetent to stand trial. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 46B .004(c) (Ve rnon 2006). I f, af ter an informa l i n q u i ry , t h e trial c ourt deter mines that evidenc e exists t o support a finding of inc omp e te nc y , th e tr ia l c ourt sh a ll o rd e r a

n e xami natio n to de te rm ine whe th er the de fe nd a nt i s incompetent to stand trial in a c riminal case . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 46B.005( a) ( Ver non 20 06 ); Sa lah ud

-d in v . S tat e , 206 S.W .3d 203, 208 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. ref' d). ( 2) The Trial

Court Made a Sufficient Inquiry Before Acc epting Gray's Guilty Plea The Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure pr ohibits a trial court fr om acc ep t i n g a g uilty plea "unl ess it app ears th at th e defe nd ant is men tal ly com pet ent

. . . ." T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt

. 26.13(b) ( Ver

non Supp. 2007). Under A rticle 26.13, unless a n issue is ma de of an acc used' s prese nt insanity or mental competenc y at the time of the plea, the trial court ne ed not make inquiry or hea r evidenc e on such issue. See Kuy av a v . S tat e , 538 S.W. 2d 62 7, 62 8 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 76 ); Ring

v . S tate , 4 50 S.W. 2d

85 , 8 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 70 ); Go do yv . S tat e , 1 2 2 S. W. 3 d

3 1 5 , 3 2 0 ( T e x.4

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. re f' d). And this is true e specia lly wher e the tria l court has ha d opp o rtu n it y to o b s e r v e th e a c c u s e d in o p e n c o u rt, to h e ar h im o r h e r s p e a k , to o b s e r v e h is o r her demea nor, and to e ng ag e him or her in colloquy

as to the volunt ar i n es s o f t he plea

. Kuyava , 538 S.W. 2d a t 62 8; Su mm e ra ll v . S

tat e , 514 S.W .2d 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) . The be tter pra ctice, howeve r, is f

o r th e tr ia l c o u rt to in qu ir e in to th e me n ta l c o mp e te n c y o f th e d e f e n d an t w h e th e r

the issue is raised or not. Kuyava , 538 S.W .2d at 628. Her e, we need not de termine whe ther the me ntal competenc y issue was suff

iciently raised to require the t rial court to inquire i nto Gra y ' s competenc y , beca

use the re cord r efle cts that the trial court did make that inq u i ry . No t e the following exchang es occ urringbefor e the c ourt ac cepte d G r ay' s o p e np l e a

o f g u i l t y: C O U R T : B e f

o r e s i g n i n g an y o f t h e s e p a p e r s , d i d yo u s i t d o w n w i t h yo u r a t t o r n e y, Mr. Clement Dunn; and did he g o over a ll these pape rs with y ou? GRAY: Yes, sir. CO UR T: Di d y ou

un de rs tand

the m w he n y

ou sig ne d th e m? GRAY: Yes, sir.

. . . . C O U R T : In yo u r

w o r d s , j u s tt e l l m e w h a tyo u ' r e d o i n g i nc o u rth e r e t o d ay. GRAY: I ' m pleading g uilty to the offe nse. CO UR T: An d w hat of

fe ns e is t hat? GR AY : Se xua l a ssa

ult

.5

CO UR T: Al l r ig ht. I t' s a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult

. GRAY: Ag g ravated sexual assault.

. . . . COURT: Mr. Dunn, talk to me about y our judg ment as t o y our client' s mental c o mp e t e n c y. [DE F EN SE C OU

NSE L ]: Yo ur Ho no r, I ' ve sp ok e n w ithmy c lie nt a numbe r o f t ime s. Ihave sp ok e n w ithhis mot he r o n a numbe r o f o c c a sio ns . CO UR T: I s sh e pr e se nt i n th e c ourt ro om? [DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: Yes, she is. She is towar ds the bac k. CO UR T: Al l r ig ht. [DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: Iknow t hat t he presentenc e report i ndicates that my client has bee n in special e d classes, that he rece ives disability pay ments due to a "mental defic iency " as labeled for these purposes. Whil e ac knowledg ing that backg round, I ha ve f o u n d h i m t o b e a

b l e t o u n d e r s t an d

m e . A n d

w e h a v e b e e na

b l e t o c on ve rs e such that I ' m satisfied that he unde rstands what he is doing. Fr om these excerpts in par t i cu lar, it appe ars that Gr ay direc tly answe red the court' s questions in a

wa y that show e d he un de rs too d both the pr oc e e din g s ag a ins t him and the c on se qu e nc e s o f h is guil ty ple a and that he wa s abl e to ef

fe c tiv e ly c omm

un ic a te wi th his a tto rn e y . Hi s att or ne y ' s r e sp on se to the t rial court's inquiry confirme d that, even thoug h Gra y had a history

of taking specia l education classes, Gr ay

was a ble to understand the proce eding s ag ainst him. After these exchang es, during wh ic h th e tr ia l cour t had th e op po rt un ity to c omm un ic a te wi th G ra

y and ob se rv e his be havio r, it6

expressly found as f

ollows: "I ' m goingto rec eive your g uilty plea. I ' m goingto find that y ou make it freel y andvo lu nt ari ly , t hat y ou are m ent all y com pet ent ." The re cord r evea ls no evidence to rebut the pre sumpti o n o f co m p etenc e such that the trial court would have bee n require d to make fur ther inquiry

into Gray ' s competenc e. Having satisfied its e lf by its inf or ma l inq uir y that G ra y wa s c omp e te nt, the tr ia l c ourt pr op e rl y a c c e pte d G ra

y ' s g uil ty plea without inquiring further into competency . We overrule Gra y ' s first point of err or. ( 3) Fa ili ng

to I nq uir e Fu rth e r in to C

om pe te nc yat t he Pu nis hm e nt He ar ing W as Not an Ab us e of Discretion; The Court' s Inquiry W

as Sufficient A def endant m u s t al s o be mentally competent to be se ntence d. See Cas e yv . S tat e , 924 S.W .2d 946, 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). To prompt the trial cour t's infor mal inquiry

conce rning the def end an t 's co m p etency , the evidenc e must raise a "bona fide doubt" in the mind of the trial judge to the defe ndant' s competenc y to stand trial. See Alc ot t v. Stat e , 5 1 S. W. 3 d 5 9 6 , 6 0 1 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ); Col lie r v . S tat e , 9 59 S.W. 2d

62 1, 62 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); Sa lah ud -d in , 206 S

. W

. 3 d at 2 0 8

. A b o n a f

i d e d o u b ti s "a r ea l d o u

b ti nt h e j u d ge's m i n d

as t o t h e d ef

en d an t 's

com pet ency ." Fuller , 2 0 0 8 T ex . C ri m . Ap p . L E XIS 5 6 7 , at * 1 2 (q u o t i n g Alc ott , 51 S.W .3d at 599 n.10). Evidenc e ra ising a bona fide doubt "ne ed not be suff icient t o support a finding of in com pe t e n c e a n d i s q ual it ati vel y di fferen t f

rom su ch ev id ence. " Fuller , 2008 Tex. Crim . App. L EX I S 56 7, a t *1 2; Alc ott , 51 S.W .3d at 599 n.10. Evidenc e is sufficie nt to cre ate a bona fide doubt if it indicates " rec ent seve re me ntal illness, at least moderate re tardation, or truly bizarre a cts by

the defe nd ant ." Fuller , 2 00 8 Te x. Cr im. Ap p. L EX I S 56 7, a t *1 2; Mc Da nie l v . S

tat e , 98 S.W .3d 704,7

71 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); Colli er , 959 S.W .2d at 625. I f any evidenc e that sug g ests the def endant

may be inc omp e te nt t o s tand

tr ia l c ome s to the tr ia l c ourt ' s atte nti on , th e tr ia l c ourt sh a ll s ua sp on te "sug g est that the d ef

endant may

be incompete nt to stand trial" a nd then " deter

mine by informal inquiry whether there is so m e ev i d ence from any source that would support a finding that the defe nd ant may

be i nco mp ete nt to st and tr ial ." T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 46B .004 (Ve rnon 2006). The que stion, then, before us is whether the trial court abused its discr etion when, in lig ht of the e vidence prese nted at punishment, it did not conduct a further competenc y inquiry at that time. We a dd re ss G ra y ' s c ontention

by fi rs t no tin g that, m ome nts be fo re the punis hme nt p ha se beg an, the t ri al court a sked both Gra y and def ense c ounsel about Gra

y ' s understandingof the proce eding s. We believe that was sufficie nt. I n a simil ar case decide d by the For t Worth C ourt of Appea ls, the court rule d that Chapter 46B was satisfied w ith the trial court 's i n fo rm al i nquiry

e sta bli sh ing that the de fe nd ant did no t su ff e r fr om re c e nt se ve re me nta l ill nes s o r m ode rate

re tard a tio n, tha

t he un de rs too d th e c ha

rg e s th a t he wa s fa c ing , that he ha d b e e n a ble to c omm

un ic a te in a m eaning ful way with his attorney s, that an ex parte evaluation had found him competent to stand trial, and that his own counsel had no question about hi s competenc e to stand trial. See Lawrence

v . S tat e , 169 S.W .3d 319, 325 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2005, pet. ref' d); see also Hill v. Sta te , No

. 2- 06 -0 94 -C R, 2 00 7 T e x. Ap p. L EX I S 22 72 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th M ar. 22 , 2 00 7, pe t.

re f' d) (m e m. o p. , n ot d e sig nate d f or pu bli c a tio n) ; Joh ns on v . S

tat e , Nos. 05-05-00464- CR, 05-05- 00465-CR, 05-05-00466-CR, 05-05-00467- CR, 2006 Tex. App. L EXI S 3062 (Tex. App.—Dallas8

Ap r. 18 , 2 00 6, no pe t.) (m e m. o p. , n ot d e sig nate d f or pu blic a tio n) . H e re , a sid e fr om a n e x part e evaluation (the importance of which seems minimal), we find the tria l court' s inquiry quite simil ar t o t hat in Lawrence

. W e t h i n k t h e p r e v i o u s l y qu o t e d e xc h an g e s b e t w e e n t h e t r i a l c o u rta ndbo th Gra y and def ense c ounsel are sufficie nt to constitut e an inf ormal inquiry

into Gray ' s competenc e. Gr ay ' s contention could be r ead to a dvance the position that the evidence prese nted at punishment was suffic ient to prompt the trial court to i nquire into Gra y ' s competenc y

further during the punishment hear ing. A t the punishment hearing , Gra y ' s mother testified tha

t Gr a y , eig hteen y ear s old at the time of trial, was born pr emature ly . As a re sult, "he' s slow" a nd "he is kind of hard to pick up on stuff." She explained that he under went re g ular doc tor visits t o qualify for SSI benef its which he has r ece ived since the ag e of f our. When asked the rea son h e re ce i v ed s u ch benef its, she reiter ated that Gr ay

"is slow and ha

rd to p i ck up stuff and ha d trouble in school and stuff ." She descr ibed the trouble G ray had in school: "Well, he wouldn' t sit down in the class, and he w as slow picking up stuff. They

put him in specia l ed. I t was the same thing, so." She went on to explain that Gra y continued to do poorly in the s pecia l education prog ram and had to repeat a g rade . His mother te s ti f ie d th a t G r ay a ls o h a d a h ar d ti me k e e p in g a

jo b s in c e dr o p p in g o u t o f s c h o o l, s tati n g th a t he has worke d only about two day s. His employ ers would let him go be cause he " was ha rd to pick up

on wha tev er t hey

were d oi ng." Gra y , acc ording to his mot her, ha s trouble per forming simple, everyday tasks. She and Gr ay both insist that Gra

y had conse nsual sex with hi s thirteen-y ear -old co usin, who is also considere d9

"slow," but that he did not forc ibly rape her. She had become aware about a y ear and a ha lf ea

rlier ab o u t t h e fi rst time Gray had had se x with his y oung cousin. On lea rning of the incide nt, Gray 's mother phy sically

punished him and direc ted him not to enga g e in such inappr opriate be havior. Gr ay te sti fi e d th a t hi s c ou sin

e xpre sse d h e r d e sir e to h a ve se x with him . G ra y re c a lle d c le a rl y the occ asions on which he ha d sex with the g irl and all the de tails conce rning time and location. He

rea dily admitted having sex with the girl, but explained that she wanted to do so. When asked, he de sc ri be d h is c ou sin

a s " so me tim e s sl ow " bu t be lie ve d th a t sh e kn e w w hat sh e wa s ta lki nga bo ut. Gra y confirme d that he did attend some spe cial educ ation classes. On c r o s s - e xam i n a t i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g e xc h an g e t o o k

p l a c e d e m o n s t r a t i n g G r ay ' s g e n e r a l ly l u ci d an d p re ci s e r es p o n s es t o qu es t i o n i n g: [THE STATE] : Mr. Gra y , y o u s aid in y our PSI , "I didn't think I

forc ed her

or no thi ng " ; is that c or

re c t? GR AY : I did n' t sa y that. [ T HE S T AT E ] : Yo u d i dn 't s ay t o t h e p re s en t en ce i n v es t i gat i o no ff i ce r t h at , "Id i dn 't th in k I for ced h er or

no th in g"? GRAY: Isaid, " Ididn't f orce her." Ididn't sa

y , "I didn't think." When confronte d with the acc usation that he for ced his c ousin to have sex with him, Gr ay responde d th at h e "wou ld n't d o t hat to my cou si n, " th at h e "wou ld n't d o t hat to no bo dy ." Es se nti a lly , th e e vid e nc e to w hic h G ra y points a s r a isi nga

bo na fi de do ub t a s to his competenc y

is the evidenc e of his below-ave rag e intellige nce a nd the fa ct that he r ece ives Social10

Security chec ks based on " mental disability ." The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has c oncluded that evidenc e of modera

te or g reater re tardation is sufficient to cre ate a question of compete ncy . See McD aniel , 9 8 S. W.3 d at 71 0. I t ha s n ot g on e fu rt he r t o c on c lude t hat e vid e nc e su g g e sti ngthat a d e f e n d an t h a s b e lo w - a v e r a g e in te ll ig e n c e an d , ar g u a b ly , may be mentally

reta rded is, alone , sufficie nt to sugg est that the def endant is incompete nt. Nor have any of our sister c ourts. See Ar gu e lle s v . S tat e , No

. 13 -0 6- 00 18 4- CR, 20 07 Te x. Ap p. L EX I S 79 11 (T e x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i Oct. 4, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op., not de signated for publication) (conc luding the f ollowing e vidence was insuffic ient to raise a bona fide doubt that defe nd an t wa s competent: (1) defe ndant re ceive d Social Security benef

its, (2) defenda

nt had been pl ace d in specia l education classes, (3) def endant

su ff e re d f ro m de pr e ssi on , ( 4) de fe nd ant t oo k pre sc ri pti on me dic a tio n, and (5 ) de fe nd ant w a s una ble to rea d). Given the thoroug h informal inqui ry made by the t rial court at the time it took Gray ' s plea, the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d d ur ingthe punis hme nt h e ari ngwa s n ot o f s uc h c ha ra c ter or qu anti ty

to require the trial court to f

urther inquire into Gr ay ' s ability to consult with counsel or under stand the pr oc e e din g s a g a ins t hi m. We c on c lud e tha t th e tr ia l c ourt did no t abu se its dis c re tio n b y fa ili ngto conduct f urther inquiry

into Gray ' s competenc y

afte r hea ring the evidenc e pre sented duringthe punishment hearing . The trial court inquired informa lly shortly befor e the punishment hea ring b e g an , an d

th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t p u n is h me n t d id n o t p r o mp t f u rth e r in qu ir y in to th e matt e r . We

overr ule Gra y ' s second point of e rror .11

We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

J o s h R

. M o r r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: May 5, 2008 Date D ecide d: J uly 2, 2008 Pub lis h