### NUM BER 13-07- 739- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
RIC HA RD H UF F, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 19t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la App ellant , Richard Huf f , plea ded no con test wi tho ut the ben ef it of a plea-b argain
a g r e e me n tt o t h e o ffe n s e o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l tw i t h a d e a d l y w e a p on. See T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 22. 02(a )(2) (Verno n Sup p. 2008 ). Af ter f inding tha t Huf

f had bee n previously convicted of

one felon y

o f f e n s e , the trial court asse ssed p unish me nt atf if ty y ears’2

i mp r i s on me nt

. H uff b r i ng s tw o i s s ue s for r ev i ew
. W e affi r m. I

. B A CK GRO UND Huff w as ind ic ted o n F ebr uar y 15, 2007, for c o m m it ti n g ag g ra v ated ass aul t by sta bbi ng hi s w ife, R obi n H uff , w it h a k nife. On Ma y 1, 2007, Huff’s defense c ounse l filed
a mo tion fo r a me nta l examina tion and a pretrial hea ring on his com pet ency to stand trial. Aft e r w a r d , t h e t r i a l c o u rto r d e r e d H u ff t o u n d e rg o a p s y c h i a t r i ce x a mi n a t i o n w i t h R aul Cap it ain e, M .D ., a forens ic psy chi atr is t, to ev alu ate his compet ency to sta nd tr ial

. On J une 13, 200 7, D r. Capita ine filed a w ritten repo rt w hich show ed th at Huf f had a me nta l il lness si nce he w as fourteen y ears o ld and w as hospi tal iz ed s ev er al ti mes pe r y ear for ment al il lne ss unti l ag e tw e n ty-s ix

. He w as las t hos pit ali z ed i n J anuar y 2006. D r. C api tai ne di a g n o s e d H u ff w i t h “ B i p o l a r 1 D i s o r d e r
. M o s t R e c e n t E p i s o d e M i x e d

. S e v er e w it h Psy chot icF eatures” and “P oly subs tanc e Abus e, i n re mis si on in a c ontroll ed env ironment.” Dr . C api tai ne found H uff co mpetent to s tand tr ia l a n d f o u nd no ev ide nce of mental
re tardati on. Huff’s ple a hear ing oc cur re d on Nov ember 27, 2007, at w hic h the t ri al cour t as ked Huff, among other thi ng s, if he si g ned and ini ti ale d all of t he ple a paper w or k, if he s ig ned the p lea papers fr eel y

and v olu ntar il y , and i f he understo od th at by ente ri n g h is p le a , he
w a s g i v i n g u p hi s r i g h tt o a j u r y t r i a l

. H u ff a ffi r ma t i v e l y a n s w e r e d t h e s e q u e s t i o n s
. H u ff ple aded “N o contes t” to the all eg ati on i n the i ndi ctmentand ple aded “ True” to the a ll eg ati on tha t he ha d a prior felon y conviction. Huf

f af f irmed thathe w as en tering h is p le as f reely and v olu ntar il y

and that he unde rs tood that the j udg e c oul d find him g uil ty . W hen the tr ial court aske d de fense coun sel if he be liev ed th at Huf

f w as me nta lly com pet ent to ap pea r in court an d en ter the pleas, coun sel state d, “[I]t is my opinion thathe ha s dram atically imp rov ed since Februa ry of this y ear [2007 ], and it is my opinion he’s bee n ab le to assist3

me i n preparati on for today ’s hear ing

. I bel iev e he is competent to stand tr ial at thi s t ime. ” The tr ial courtaccept ed the pleas, recei v ed Huff ’s judi ci al confess ion and sti pul ati on i nto
e vid e n c e , a n d h e a rd t e s t im o n y. The v ic ti m tes ti fied th at on the morni ng of Febr uar y 9, 2007, w hil e dr iv ing H uff to do lau ndr y , H uff as ked if sh e w anted a di v or ce. Be fore s he c oul d repl y , he tol d her, “I ’l l end this w hole thing ri ght here. I w ill slit y our thro at and kill y ou. ’” He pulled out a kn ife an d told her to pu ll ov er
. W hen s he pul led ov er , H uff st arted s tabbi ng and chok ing her

. She t hen heard H uff

ca ll 9- 1- 1. He sta bbed he r ele v en ti mes on her ch est , nec k, and bac k. Huff test ified thathe h ad been mental ly i ll si nce the a ge o f

f o u rteen an d w as hospi tal iz ed tw o or

three ti mes a y ear

until the ag e of

tw enty -s ix

w hen he r eal iz ed th at he
nee ded to take his med ication in order to “f unct ion.” W hen def ense cou n s e l a s k e d him about the stabb ing of

Robi n, Huff

respo nded that he “[J ]us t gotout of control. ” H e s aid that af ter he sa w

w hat had hap pen ed, he called 9-1-1. He den ied cho king her. After hear ing al l of the te st imony , t he j udg e found H uff g uil ty , found t he enhanc ement al leg ati on to be t ru e, and asses sed puni shmentat fiftyy ears’ i mpri sonment

. II. D I S CUS S I ON By hi s first is sue, H uff

arg ues that the t ri al cour t v iol ated his Du e P roces s r ig hts
u n d e r th e Fo u rt e e n th Am e n d m e n t t o th e Un it e d St a te s Co n st it u ti o n b y n o t h o ld in g a hear ing w hen ev ide nce suffici ent to ra is e a bona fide doubt conc er nin g hi s c ompetenc y to st a n d tri a l b e ca m e evid e n t. W e a p p ly a n a b u se -o f-d isc re ti o n s ta n d a rd w h e n revie wing a trial court's failure to co ndu ct an inquiry into a de fend ant ’s comp ete ncy to sta nd trial. Mo ntoy a v. St a te , N o. P D- 0239- 08, 2 009 W L 18733 54, a t * 5 ( Tex . C ri m. App. Ju ly 1, 2009)

. In ap ply ing thi s s tandard, “ An app ell ate c our t doe s n ot s ubst it ute i ts jud g ment for tha t of the trial court, but rath er dete rmine s w het her the trial court’s decision w as arbitraryAr t i cl e 46 B. 004 pr ov i des: 1 ( a) Ei t her par t y m ay sugg est by m ot i on, or t he t r i al cour t m ay suggest on i t s own m ot i on, t hat t he d ef endan t m ay be i ncom pet ent t o st and t r i al

. A m ot i on s ug ge s t i ng t hat t he d ef endan t m a y b e i n c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l m a y b e s u p p o r t e d b y a ff i d a v i t s s e t t i n g o u t t h e f a c t s on whi ch t he su ggest i on i s m ade. ( b) I fev i dence suggest i ng t he d efendant m ay be i ncom pet ent t o st and t r i al com es t o t he at t ent i on o ft he co ur t , t he co ur t on i t s own m ot i on sh al l sugg est t hat t he d ef endan t m ay be in c o m p e te n t t o s ta n d tr ia l. ( c ) O n s u g g e s tio n th a t t h e d e f e n d a n t m a y b e in c o m p e te n t t o s t a n d t r ia l, th e c o u r t s h a ll d e te r m in e b y in f o r m a l in q u ir y w h e th e r th e r e is s o m e e v id e n c e f r o m a n y s o u r c e th a t w o u ld s u p p o r t a f in d in g th a t t h e d e f e n d a n t m a y b e in c o m p e te n t t o s ta n d tr ia l. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 46 B

. 00 4 (V ern on 20 06 ). 4 or unrea sona ble.” Id

. A. A ppl ic able Law The code of cr imi nal procedu re prohi bit s a tr ial co urt from acc epti ng ei ther a g uil ty p l e a o r a p l e a o f nolo conte nde re “unless it appe ars that the de fend ant is ment ally
com pet ent . . . .” T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 26.13( b) ( Ver non 200 9)

. A defendant must als o be mental ly

co mpetent to be se ntenc ed. See Cas ey v. State, 924 S.W .2d 9 46, 949 (Te x . Crim. App

. 199 6) (stating tha t sent encin g is part of trial an d co m p e t ency cons ide ra ti ons appl y ). U n d e r a rt ic le 46B.00 4 of the code of cr imi nal procedu re , a t ri al 1
cour t’ s i nq uir y i nto a defendant’ s c ompetenc e may be i nformal

. Mo n to ya, 2 0 0 9 WL 187 335 4, at*4. T his allows the trial court to informa lly dete rmine w het her the def end ant ’s behav ior duri ng a proceed ing indi cat es a lack of rati onal unders tandi ng
. Id

. The Monto ya
cour t s tated thatbona fide doub t i s “ the p ro per st andard fo r d e te rmi nin g w hether a t ri al court sho uld con duct an inquiry .” Id

. If a tr ial co urt has a bo na f ide doubtaboutthe def end ant ’s comp ete ncy, i t “shall cond uct an in f o rm a l inq uiry to det ermin e if

there is evidence th at w ould supp ort a f inding of incom pet ence .” Id

. “A bon a f ide do ubt may ex ist if the defendant ex hib it s t ru ly bi z ar re behav ior

or has a recenthi sto ry

of sev er e mentalI n M oo re , t he co ur t st at ed: 2 P rio r h o s p i ta l i za ti o n
. . . d o [e s ] n o t per se w a rr a n t t h e c o u rt i m p a n e l i n g a s e p a ra te ju ry t o conduct a com pet ency hea r i ng. T o r ai se t he i ssue o fcom pet en c y by m eans oft he de fen da nt’ s pa s t m en t al he al t h h i s t ory , t he re g e n e ra l l y m us t be evi de nc e o f r ec en t se vere m ent al i l l ness o r bi z ar r e act s by t he d ef endan t or of m oder at e r et ar dat i on. M o o re v . S ta te , 99 9 S

. W

. 2d 38 5, 39 5 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 19 99 ). 5 illness or at least m ode rate m ent al retarda tion. ” Id

. Ar ti cl e 46B. 003 prov ide s t hat a person is i ncompet ent t o s tand tr ial i f the person does not h a ve: “(1 ) suffici ent p re sentabi li ty to cons ultw it h the person' s l awy er w it h a
re aso n a b le deg re e of r ati onal understa ndi ng ; or ( 2) a rati onal as w ell as factual und erstan ding of the proce edin gs against the perso n.” T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 46B .00 3(a)(1) (2) ( Verno n 20 06). T his statu te “specif ies the def end a n t’s pr esent a b il it y. . . . [P]ast men tal-he alth issue s raise the issue of incom pet ency onlyif th ere is ev iden ce of rec ent s ev er e mental i ll ness , a t leas t moderate retardati on, o r biz ar re ac ts by the def end ant .” Mo ntoy

a, 2009 W L 1873354, at*4 (e mphasi s i n or ig ina l) ; see Mo or e v . St ate, 999 S. W .2d 385, 39 5 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999)

. “ The cons ide ra ti ons w hen ev alu ati ng 2 compet ency

to sta nd tr ial i ncl ude t he defendant’ s l ev el of understa ndi ng of the p ro ceedi ng and ability to con sult w ith cou nsel in prep aratio n for the p rocee ding.” Mo ntoy a, 2 0 0 9 WL 1873354, at *4. “ Thus, thos e w ho obs er v ed th e behav ior

of the d efendant atthe hear ing . . . [are] in a be tter po sitio n to de term ine w het her . . . [the def end ant is] present ly
com pet ent .” Id .; see Mc Dan iel v. Sta te , 98 S.W .3d 7 04, 7 1 3 ( T e x . C ri m. App. 2003) (statin g “ W e c an no t i g no r e th e tr i al c ou rt’ s fi rs t- ha nd fac tu al a s s es s me nto f ap pe l l an t’ s mental co mpetency. His factual findi ng s, that appel lan t und ersto od th e nat ur e of the proceed ing s a nd as si ste d hi s c ounse l in his defense, are ent it led to g re at deferenc e by the
rev iew ing court.”).6

B. An alysis Dr . Capi tai ne found Huff competent to stand tr ial

. Fur ther more, the re cord reflect s no ind ication of

recent se v ere m ent al illness, mo dera te reta rdatio n, or truly bi za rr e acts, and ther e w as no s ug g est ion by H uff ’s defense couns el, the prosec utor , or the tr ial co urt, all of w hom sa w

H uff ’s behav ior

at the p lea hear ing , t hat H uff appeared u nabl e to understa nd th e proceed ing s. The re cord show ed th at H uff had the s uff ic ien t presentabi li ty to c onsul t w it h hi s l awy er w ith a reason abl e deg re e of r ati onal understa ndi ng and had a
ra ti onal as w ell as a fact ual understa ndi ng of the p ro ceedi ng s a g ain st him. See T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 46 B.0 03(a )(1) ( 2). Giv ing proper def eren ce to th e trial judge’s det ermin at ion ba sed o n his ability to see Huf f ’s beha v ior, w e con clude thatbeca use ev ide nce did not come t o the tr ial co urt' s a ttent ion su g g est ing thatH uff may hav e been inc ompetentto sta nd tr ial , t he tr ial courtdid not abuse i ts dis creti on by fail ing to deter mine by informa l inq uiry w het her there w as som e evidence f rom a ny source thatw ould supp ort a f ind ing that Huff

w as inc ompetentto sta nd tr ial

. See Montoy a v . St ate , No. PD -0 239- 08, 2009 W L 18733 54, a t * 5 ( Tex . C ri m. App. Ju ly 1, 2009)

. Is sue one i s o v er ru led

. By his secon d issue, Huf f argues his ri ght to a prop er dete rmi n ation of his inc ompetenc y t o s tand tr ial w as v iol ated becau se the t ri al cour t fail ed to foll ow

the
ma nda tory proce dure s of Ch a p t e r 4 6 B o f

the cod e of

criminal proce dure once ev iden ce sug g est ing he w as inc ompetentto sta nd tr ial ca me to the tr ial cour t’ s a ttent ion

. I f, after a n infor mal inq uir

y , t he c our

t det er mines thatev ide nce ex is ts to s uppor t a f in d in g of inc ompetenc y , t he c our t s hal l order

an e x aminat ion to deter mine w hether the defend a nt is i ncompet ent t o s tand tr ial

. Id . art. 46 B.0 05(a ) ( Verno n 20 06). Gen erally , if the cou rt det ermin es tha t evidence exists to supp ort a f inding of incom pet ency, the cou rt shall hold a hear ing before deter mini ng w hether the d efendant i s i ncompet ent t o s tand tr ial , and , on7

the req uestof

either party or on the c our

t' s mot ion , a jur

y sh all make the d eter minat ion w it h
re spec t to w hether

the defendant i s i ncompet ent. Id. ar ts. 46B. 005( b) , 46B .051. ( Ver non 200 6). Here, t he tr ial co urt orde re d a n ex aminat ion to deter mine w hether H uff w as in c o mp e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l

. D r
. C a p i t a i n e e v a l u a t e d H u ff a n d d e t e r mi n e d t h a the w as compet ent t o s tand tr ial

. Beca use ev ide nce did not come t o t h e tr ial co urt' s a ttent ion sug g est ing thatH uff

may hav e been inc ompetentto sta nd tri al, the tr ial courtdi d notv iol ate the mand atory pr o ce d ur es setforth i n c hapter 46B of the c ode of cr imi nal procedu re
. Iss ue tw o i s o v er ru led

. III

. C ONCL US I ON The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 0th d ay

of 2009.