i 

No. 06-15-00006-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE 

SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MICHAEL DUANE HOLT, 

Appellant 

V 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Appellee 

APPEALED FROM THE 71st DISTRICT COURT 

HARRISON COUNTY, TEXAS 

TRIAL COURT CAUSE #12-0381X 

 

BRIEF OF STATE 

 

COKE SOLOMON 

CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

HARRISON COUNTY, TEXAS 

P.O. BOX 776 

MARSHALL, TEXAS 75671 

(903) 935-8408 

BY: SHAWN ERIC CONNALLY 

ASSISTANT CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

BAR #24051899 

ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE 

APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARUGMENT 

ACCEPTED

06-15-00006-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

5/4/2015 1:00:19 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 5/4/2015 1:00:19 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
ii

No. 06-15-00006-CR

MICHAEL DUANE HOLT

Appellant

V

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

__________________________________________

NAMES OF ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS

__________________________________________

The names and identifying information of all parties and attorneys were correctly stated 

in Appellant’s brief.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NAMES OF ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS........................................................................ ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... iv

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE ...........................................1

STATE’S REPLY ISSUE ONE: .......................................1

The trial court did not commit reversible error because the judgment in 

Appellant’s case reflects a finding by the trial court that Appellant was mentally 

competent to stand trial and the record reflects that the trial court had the 

opportunity to consider Appellant’s competence before accepting his guilty plea

GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE FACTS..................................................................................1

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES............................................................................................2

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT REPLY ISSUE ONE ...............................................2

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES REPLY ISSUE ONE.................................3

PRAYER..........................................................................................................................................5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................................................5
iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

Cooper v State, 333 S.W. 3d 859 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d)............................3

Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 400, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 2687, 125 L.ed.2d 321 (1993)............3

Bradford v. State, 172 S.W.3d 1, 406 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005)...................................3

Schaffer v. State, 583 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (op. on reh’g)........3

Montoya v State, 291 S.W.3d 420, 426 (Tex.Crim.App.2009)........................................4

Balentine v. State, 09-09-00354-CR, 2011 WL 2732146 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2011, rev’d on 

other grounds)................................................................................................4

STATUTES:

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 46B.084(a) (Vernon Supp. 2010)...................................3
1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE

Appellant’s preliminary statement of the case is correct. 

STATE’S REPLY POINT ONE

The trial court did not commit reversible error because the judgment in 

Appellant’s case reflects a finding by the trial court that Appellant was mentally 

competent to stand trial and the record reflects that the trial court had the opportunity to 

consider Appellant’s competency to stand trial before accepting his guilty plea. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Appellant was indicted on a single count of aggravated sexual assault of a child (CR Vol. 

I, Page 5). Prior to indictment, trial counsel for Appellant filed a motion suggesting that 

Appellant was incompetent (CR. Vol IA, Page 4). 

Pursuant to an order of the 71st District Court, Dr. Thomas Allen evaluated the Appellant 

on Oct 3, 2012 and based on his evaluation found Appellant to be incompetent to stand trial (CR 

Vol IA, Page 15-19). On October 15, 2012, the trial court made a finding that Appellant was 

mentally incompetent to stand trial, and committed the Appellant to Rusk State Hospital (CR. 

Vol. IA, Pages 9-14). 

On May 14th, 2013 the North Texas State Hospital released the Appellant based on an 

evaluation by Gloria Bell, Ph.D., indicating that Appellant had attained competency (CR Vol. IA 

Pages 20-25).
2

On April 15th, 2014, Appellant was re-evaluated by Dr. Thomas Allen who found 

Appellant competent to stand trial (CR Vol. I, Pages 61-65). 

On October 28th, 2014 the trial court called the case and accepted the Appellant’s open 

plea of guilt (RR Vol. II, Pages 3-11) and state’s exhibits 1-5 (CR. Vol. I, Pages 70-79). The trial 

judge then had an opportunity to consider Appellant’s competency to stand trial and the 

voluntariness of his plea. (RR. Vol II, Pages 3-11). State’s exhibit 2 reflects signatures by the 

defendant and defense counsel claiming the defendant is mentally competent to stand trial. (CR. 

Vol I, Page 73).

Dr. Thomas Allen was called by the defense (RR. Vol. II, Page 65). It was Dr. Allen’s 

opinion that Appellant was competent to stand trial (RR. Vol. II, Page 71).

At the conclusion of testimony and argument the court assessed that Appellant’s 

punishment at 25 years in the Texas Department of Corrections (RR Vol. II, Page 87). 

The final paragraph on page 1 in Appellant’s judgment in this case contains the following 

finding by the trial court: “It appeared to the Court that Defendant was mentally competent to 

stand trial, made the plea freely and voluntarily, and was aware of the consequences of this 

plea.” (CR Vol. I, Page 79)

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT REPLY POINT ONE

While it is true that defendant was originally found incompetent to stand trial, in this case 

the defendant was found competent to stand trial by Dr. Gloria Bell and Dr. Thomas Allen after 

being revaluated subsequent to the finding of incompetency, and the trial court had the 
3

opportunity to consider Appellant’s competence before trial and it admonished Appellant with 

both the voluntariness of his plea and his competency to stand trial before accepting his plea (RR 

Vol. II, Pages 3-11), Appellant and counsel acknowledge he was competent to stand trial in 

state’s exhibit 2 (CR. Vol. I, Page 73). Furthermore, the judgment in this case reflects such a 

finding of competency to stand trial. (CR Vol. I, Page 79)

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES REPLY POINT ONE

While Appellant correctly states the law in his brief, the state respectfully disagrees with 

the way Appellant applied to the law to the facts of this case. 

The state agrees with Appellant that the applicable law is correctly stated in Cooper v. 

State, 333 S.W.3d 859 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, pet. ref’d):

“Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a trial court may 

not accept a criminal defendant’s guilty plea unless that defendant is legally competent to 

make such a plea. See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 400, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 2687, 125 

L.ed.2d 321 (1993). And once a defendant has been adjudicated incompetent, “on the 

return of a defendant to the court, the court shall make a determination with regard to the 

defendant’s competency to stand trial.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 46B.084(a) 

(Vernon Supp.2010); see also Bradford v. State, 172 S.W.3d 1, 406 (Tex.App.-Fort 

Worth 2005).” 

Once a defendant is found incompetent, he is presumed to be incompetent to stand trial 

“until it has been determined in accordance with the law that he is competent to stand trial.” 

Schaffer v. State, 583 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (op. on reh’g).
4

The record must contain a judgment, order, docket entry, or other evidence that trial court 

actually made a determination of competency. Cooper at 862; Schaffer at 631.

The standard of review for this case is correctly stated in Montoya v State, 291 S.W.3d 

420, 426 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (stating that the standard of review for a competency 

determination is abuse of discretion because “those who observed the behavior of the defendant 

at the hearing were in a better position to determine whether he was presently competent”) 

The Appellant would liken the facts of this case to the facts in Bradford where there was 

“no judgment, order, docket sheet entry, or other statement or evidence showing the trial court 

made a determination that Bradford had regained competency” Bradford at 5. However, the state 

argues the facts of this care are directly on point to the facts in Cooper. As in Cooper, the trial 

court in Appellant’s case inquired into Appellant’s competency to stand trial (RR. Vol II, Pages 

3-11), the trial court admonished Appellant before accepting his plea (RR. Vol II, Pages 3-11),

and the judgment in Appellant’s case reflects such a find of competency (CR Vol. I, Page 79).

The court in Balentine v. State, 09-09-00354-CR, 2011 WL 2732146 (Tex.App.-

Beaumont 2011, rev’d on other grounds) reached a similar conclusion as the court in Cooper. In 

Balentine, the court concluded that based on: “the judgement and observation reflected in the 

record” Balentine at 1, that the record was sufficient to show a determination of competency 

before the trial judge. 

There is more than enough evidence in this case to support the trial court’s finding of 

Appellant’s competency to stand trial as reflected by the record, the court’s judgment in this 

case, as well as the plea paperwork in state’s exhibit 1 – 5. 

Appellant’s Issue One should be overruled.
5

PRAYER

The trial court having committed no reversible error, the state respectfully prays this 

Court affirm the verdict and judgment of the court below.

Respectfully Submitted

Coke Solomon

Criminal District Attorney

Harrison County, Texas

By: /s/ Shawn Eric Connally

________________________

Shawn Eric Connally Assistant 

Criminal District Attorney

Bar #24051899

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief of the Appellee has 

been faxed to the attorney for Appellant, Scott Rectenwald, this 4th day of May, 2015.

/s/ Shawn Eric Connally 

____________________________

Shawn Eric Connally

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

I hereby certify compliance with T.R.A.P 9.4(i)(3), and that the number of words in this 

document is 1471.

/s/ Shawn Eric Connally

____________________________

Shawn Eric Connally