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 71 st 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

CLERKii 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

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... i v

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE

................................ ........... 1

ST ATE’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 STATEM ENT 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

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5iv

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 Wort h 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)..................... ..............31 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 71 st 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 Ap pellant was
mentally incompetent to stand trial, and committed the Appellant to Rusk State Hospital (CR.
Vol. IA, Pages 9

- 14).
On May 14 th , 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 15 th , 2014, Appellant was re

- evaluated by Dr. Thomas Allen who found
Appellant comp etent to stand trial (CR Vol. I, Pages 61

- 65 ).

On October 28 th , 2014 the trial court called the case and accepted the Appellant’s open
plea o f 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 wa s 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 the3

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 incompete nt 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 standar d 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 fa cts of t his 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 refl ects such a find of competency (CR Vol. I, Page 79)

.

T he 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 Iss ue 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 Atto rney 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 f or 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