### 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. 03-12-00286- CR

Sterling Jones, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 147 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 06- 3022 06, H ONO RAB LE CLIF F ORD B ROW N, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Sterling J ones pleade d g uilty to the crime of attempted arson. After the district court

acc epted the plea, J ones was sentenc ed to 5 y ear s’ imprisonment but was place d on community supervision. A few y ear s later, the State moved t o revoke J ones’s communit y supervi s i o n . After convening a hea

ring , the district c ourt revoke d his c ommunity supervision and sentenc ed him to 3 y ear s’ i mprisonment. I n a si ng le i ssue on appea l, J ones contends that t h e d i s t ri ct court abused its discretion by failing to sua sponte conduc t an inqui ry conce rning his competenc y befor e revoking his community

supervision. Under the Code of Criminal Procedur e, a trial court “may sug g est on its own motion, that the defe ndant may be incompetent to sta nd trial.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc

. art. 46B.004( a). “A sug g estion of incompetenc y is the threshold require ment for an informal inquiry

. . . and may consist solely of a repr esenta tion from any cre dible source t h at the defe ndant may be incompetent.” Id.art. 46B.004( c-1)

. “Evidenc e sug g esting the need for an informal inquiry may be based on” fac tors

descr ibed by the Code of Criminal Procedur e “or on any other indication that the defe ndant is incompetent within the meaning ” established by the Code. Id. ; see id. arts
. 46B.003 (setting out standard f or incompete ncy

), .024 (listing f

actor s for c onsideration). U nder the Code: (a) A per son is incompetent to stand trial if the per son does not have: (1) sufficie nt prese nt ability to consult with the person’ s lawy er with a re asonable deg ree of ra tional understanding ; or (2 ) a rational as well as fac tual understanding of the proce eding s ag ainst the person.

Id. art. 46B.003( a). Appellate courts rev i ew a trial court’s decision to not conduct a competenc y inquiry under an abuse- of-discr etion standard. Montoya v. State , 291 S.W .3d 420, 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009), supersede d by statute on other grounds a s s tated in Turner v. State , No. AP-76,580, 2013 Tex. Crim . App. L EXI S 1592, at *41 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 30, 2013).

As support for his claim that the district court err ed, J ones relies on a repor t prepa red by a psy chiatrist two y ear s befor e the revoc ation h ea ri ng stating that J ones was schizophrenic and was not competent to participa t e i n a p ri or revoc ation proce eding

. I n addition to this repor t, J ones also ref

ers to testimony from two employ ees from the Bexar Coun t y P ro b ation Depa rtment explaining that J ones was on the mental hea l t h ca s el oad and descr ibing his mental health during his probation. J ones also contends that his testimony during the revocation hearing demonstrated his incompetenc y . Specifica lly , in his brief, J ones descr ibed his testimony as “providing rambling , para noid acc ounts of al l ege d perse cution and making bizarre, illogica l rema rks.” Fur ther, J ones

2notes that when the district court revoked his probation, i t co m m en ted t hat “it is very unfortunate

the medica l condition that Mr. J ones finds himself in periodica lly and ce rtainly

seeming ly

now.” Howeve r, during the hear ing, there was no e vidence establishing that J ones did not have the prese nt ability to consult with his lawy er with a rea sonable deg ree of rationality

. Although his lawy er st at ed in his closing that J ones’s medical condition made it difficult for him to comply with the conditions of his community supervision, his lawy er made no statement to the d i s t ri ct court that he had difficulty communicating with his client reg arding the revoc ation proce eding

. See Hobbs v. State , 359 S.W .3d 919, 925 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (explaining that history of mental illness does not war rant competenc y inquiry in absenc e of evidenc e showing that individual has curr ent inability to communicate with his lawy er)

. Reg arding J ones’s understanding of the proce eding s, the rec ord shows th a t J ones was

awa re of the nature of the proce eding s and of the conseque nces if his revoc ation was revoke d. I n h i s testimony , J ones explained that he understood that he was on community supervision for his conviction for attempted arson and that he compre hended the conditions of his community supervision. Fur

ther, he acknow ledg ed that he had violated those conditions and that the proce eding

w a s b e in g h e ld d

u e to th o s e v io la

ti o n s . I n a d d it io n , th e r e c o r d a ls o d e mo n s tr a te s th a t Jo n e s u n d e r s to o d that if the di strict court re voked his community supervision, he would g o to prison and that J ones communicated his desire to not g o to prison. J ones also communicated his desire to appea l the d is tr ic t c o u r t’ s r e v o c a ti o n . M o r e o v e r , a lt

h o u g h Jo n e s o f

te n p r o v id e d le n g th

y a n s w e r s to th e q

u e s ti o n s posed and would chang e topics during his testimony to discuss threa ts made to him by various authority fig ures, J ones did answe r the questions asked b y the State and by his attorney
. See

3Pitonyak v. State , 253 S.W .3d 834, 857 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref ’d) (noting that defe ndant articula tely

testified when a

naly zing his competenc y

). Ba sed on this rec ord, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion by not perf

orming an inquiry reg arding J ones’s competenc y or order ing an evalua tion o f his competenc y . Acc ording ly , we ove rrule Jones’s sole issue on appe al.

Having overr

uled J ones’s sole issue on appea l, we aff irm the judgme nt of the district court.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and Rose Affir med Filed: Mar ch 11, 2014 Do Not Publish

4