See T EX . P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 22

. 0 2 1 (a) (V ernon S up p . 20 0 8 ). 1 

## NOS. 12-08-00068-CR

12-08-00069-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

CHRI STOPHER H

EWITT, § APPEAL F ROM THE 217TH APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § AN GE LI NA CO UN

TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Appellant Ch ri s topher He witt appeals his conviction for two counts of ag g ravated sexual a ssa ult . In thre e iss ue s, Ap pe lla nt a sse rt s th a t hi s c on vic tio ns , a nd the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r se tti nghis tw o s e nte nc e s to ru

n c on se c uti ve ly , s ho uld

be re ve rs e d. We a ff

ir m.

B ACKG ROUND Ap pe lla nt w a s cha

rg e d by se pa

rate ind ic tme nts wi th two c ounts of a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult

. Spe c if ic a lly , th e ind ic tme nts a lle g e d th a t, o n tw o o c c a si on s, Ap pe lla nt s e xua lly

a ssa ult e d a c hil d

“ y oung e r t

ha n f ourt e e n y e ars of a g e .” Th e tr ia l court a pp ointe d co un se l to re pr e se nt A pp e lla nt i n 1 his de fe ns e of

the se tw o c ha

rg e s. On M ay 16, 2006, Appellant filed an agr eed motion s ug g esting incompetenc y and re questing an examination of Appellant by a disinterested expert. The following day , the trial court order ed that2

Ap pe lla nt b e e xami ne d for com pete nc y by Dr . Jose phKa

rt y e , a ps y c ho log ist

in L uf kin , T e xas. K artye e x am i n e d

Ap p e l l an tan d

p r o v i d e d a w r i t t e nr e p o rtt o th e tr i a l c o urt
. In th a tr e p o rt , K artye stated his opinion that Appellant was not compe tent to stand trial. Howeve r, Ka rty e provide d the trial court with the f

ollowing guidance :

. . . T her e i s ampl e e vi dence f r om bot h [ A pp el l ant ’ s ] hi s t ory as wel l as cu r r ent beha vi or t hat ment al r et ar dat i on s i gn i f

i can t l y i mp ai r s hi s abi l i t y t o as s i s t hi s at t orn ey wi t h h i s def ens e. T her e i s t he po s s i bi l i t y t hat he coul d benef i t f r om i nv ol vemen t i n a progr am of i ns t r uct i on t hat t eac hes eno ugh ab o ut the le g a l pro cess and t he rol es of vari o us co urt off

i ci al s, as well as hi s ri ght s and re sp o n sib ili ties, to the p o int tha t he c o u ld e v e n tua lly b e d e c la re d c o m p e te n t. Followinga hea

ringon the matter, at which the re port was entered into evide nce, the trial court rendered a

written judg ment in eac h case finding Appellant incompete nt to stand trial. As part of its judgment in ea ch ca se, the trial c ourt order ed that Appe llant be committed and co n fi ned to the Ver non Campus of North Tex as S tate Hospit al for “fur ther ex amination and tre atment towar ds the specific objective of

attaining competenc y

to stand trial.” Appellant wa s delivere d to the Ver non Campus on J uly 30, 2007. On Octobe r 30, 2007, and afte r a pe riod of observation and tre atment, Dr. G loria B ell, a psycholog ist at the hospital, prepar ed a wr itten report f

or the trial court. After

setting f orth in detail the data

formingthe fa ctual basis of h e r o p i n i o n , B e l l s t a t e d

t h a tAp p e l l an tw a s “ p r e s e n t l y Com petent t o Stand Trial .” (e mph a sis in orig inal). On Dec ember

6, 2007, the trial court held a joint compe tency and plea hear ing, a ddressing both ag g ravated sexual assault case s. During the hearing , the trial cour t allowed Appe llant to plead “no conte st” in b o t h case s, and subseque ntly acc epted those ple as. The tr ial court then f ound Appellant guilty

in both cases a

nd sentenc ed him to fifteen y ear s of i mprisonment for each. T he trial court orde red that the sentenc es we re to run c onsecutively . These a ppeals followe d.

C OM P E T E NCY In his first issue, Appellant asser ts that the trial court rende red a judgme nt that A ppellant hadT h e c o m p e te n c y ju d g m e n t i s style d w ith the c a u se nu m b e r o f o n ly o n e c a se a n d w a s fil e d in the c le rk ’s 2 re c o rd o f t h a t ca se o n ly.

A c c o rd ing to A p p e llan t’s b rie f, 3

. . . W hen t he [ t r i al ] cour t ques t i oned Ap pel l ant about h i s stay a t V er non[ , ] he as ked Appel l an t a bou t h i s di ag n os i s a n d t h e Cour t s t at ed: [ ‘ ] I ’ m a s k i n g be ca u s e I don ’ t k n ow[

. ’ ] ( RI I

. 9, line s 1 0 -2 2 ). T h is w o u ld ind ic a te tha t t h e C o u rt h a d no t se e n o r a t l e a s t h a d no t re a d the [e x p e rt] re p o rt tha t d e te rm ine d A p p e llan t ha d re g a ine d c o m p e te n c y. A revi ew o f

the reco rd ref

l ect s t hat the d o cum ent ti t l ed “ JU D G M E N T R E ST O R IN G C O M P E T E N C Y ” was s i gned and f i l ed i n t he cl erk’ s reco rd b ef o re t he heari ng ci t ed ab o ve b egan.

3 g ained c o m p et en cy

in only one of the two pendingag g ravated sexual assault case s. As such, 2 Ap pe lla nt a rgue s that the tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d b y re sumin gpr oc e e din g s in

the oth e r c a se (a

pp e llate c a

us e no. 12-08-00068- CR). I n his second issue, Appe llant asserts that the tria l court abuse d its discretion when it re ndere d any

judgme nts finding that Appe llant had g ained c ompetency to sta nd trial. More sp e c if ic a lly , App e lla

nt a rgue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

re nd e re d a

ny c omp e te nc y

jud g me nts wi tho ut f

ir st re vie wi nga de qu a te e vid e nc e up on wh ic h to ba se su c h a

jud g me nt. 3 Com petency P roce edings Un d e r th e D u e Pr o c e s s Cl a u s e o f th e F o urte e n th A me n dme n t to th e U n it e d States Constit ution, a trial court may not acc ept a criminal defendant’ s no contest plea unless that defe ndant is leg ally competent to make such a ple a. See Godinez v. Moran , 5 09 U. S. 3 89 , 4 00 , 1 13 S. Ct

. 2680, 2687, 125 L . Ed. 2d 321 (1993) ( applying suc h a rule i n g uilty plea c ontext ). I t is the c o n s t i tu t i o n a l d

u ty o f e a c hs t a t e t o p r o v i d e r e a s o n a b l e p r o c e d

ur e s t o a d dr e s s th e i s s u e o f c o mp e t e n c y. Me din a v. Cal

if or nia , 505 U.S. 437, 449- 50, 112 S. Ct . 2572, 2579-80, 120 L . Ed. 2d 353 (1992). F ur the r, a de fe nd ant who se c omp e te nc e is in dou bt ca nn ot be de e me d to have e xpre ssl y or imp lic itl y waived his rig ht to such proce dures. See id. , 5 05 U. S. at 4 49 , 1 12 S. Ct . at 25 79 ; Pate v. Robinson , 383 U.S. 375, 384, 86 S. C t. 836, 841, 15 L . Ed. 2d 815 (1966). Article 46B .084 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure r equire s that, afte r a def endant ha s be e n ad jud ic a te d inc omp e te nt to stand tr ia l and ha s b e e n c ri min a lly

c omm itt e d to a

me nta l ho sp ita l, the trial court must make a judicial deter mination that the def

endant ha s reg ained c ompetency befor e the cr iminal procee dings a g ains t h i m m ay be re sumed. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art
. 46 B .0 84 (a ), (d ) ( Ve rn on

Sup p. 20 08 ); Bra df

ord v . St ate , 1 72 S.W. 3d

1, 4- 6 ( Te x. Ap p. –F or

t Wor thB e c a u se it is un n e c e ssa ry to d o o the rw ise , w e re fer to o n ly t h e c u rr e n t ve rs io n o f A rtic le 4 6 B .0 8 4 in this 4 o p i ni o n. 4 2005, no pet.). When the head of a mental health fa cility discharg es a c ommitt ed def endant to the 4 trial court, the tr ial court may , ab s en t t imely objection, make a

competenc y

deter mination based solely on the re port filed by

the hea d of the fa cility wher e the def endant ha d been c ommitt ed. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 4 6B .0 84 (a ); Bra df ord , 1 72 S.W. 3d

a t 5. “ I f t

he def e nd ant i s found competent to sta

nd trial, criminal proce eding s ag ainst the defe ndant may be re sumed.” T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 4 6B .0 84 (d ); see Bra df ord , 172 S.W .3d at 4-5. Under Article 46B .084, once a defe ndant is found incompetent, h e i s p resumed to be inc omp e te nt t o s tand

trial un ti l it ha s b e e n d e te rm ine d in a c c or da nc e wi th t

he law that he is competent to st and trial. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 4 6B .0 84 (a ), (d ); Bra df ord , 172 S.W. 3d a t 4. As su c h, a

pp e llate c ourt s ma

y no t c on str

ue a tr ia l c ou rt ’s decis ion

to r e sume proce eding s ag ainst a defenda nt to include an implied findingof compe tency
. See Sc haf fe r v . St ate , 583 S.W .2d 6 27, 630 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (re quiring additional evidenc e that trial c ourt made c omp e te nc y

fi nding ); Bra df

ord , 1 72 S.W. 3d

a t 5 ( same ); Be ll v

. St ate , 814 S.W .2d 229, 232-33 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, pet. ref’d) (same) . Ex pert e valuations containingrec itations of compe tency

cannot ope rate as a substitute for a judicial fac t finding of

a def endant’ s competenc y to stand trial. See Sc haf

fe r v . St ate , 5 8 3 S

. W

. 2 d

6 2 7 , 6 3 1 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 9 ) (o p . o nre h ’g) (holding that expert repor t filed in rec ord wa s evidenc e of c ompetency , not evidence the trial cour t made a finding o

f c o m p e te n cy ); Br ad

fo rd, 1 72 S.W. 3d

a t 5 ( same ); Be ll , 814 S.W .2d at 232-33 (same) . Instead, some e vidence must ex ist that the trial court ac t u al l y m ad e a f inding that the defe ndant had g ained c ompetency
. See id. Th e fa ilure of a de fe nd ant t o ob

je c t to a re sumpt ion

in the proc eeding s does not waive a defe ndant’s rig ht to appeal suc h a re sumption. See Bra df ord , 172 S.W .3d at 6. Discussion On Dec ember

19, 2008, we abate d Appellant’s a ppeals a nd rema nded the c ases to the tria l court to make a judicial dete rmination reg ardingAppell a nt’ s c o mp e te ncy . See Schaffer , 583 S.W .2d a t 63 1 ( op . o n r e h’ g ); Bra df ord , 172 S.W .3d at 6. Pursuant to our order, t he trial court held a hea ring and, on F ebrua

ry 4, 2009, made wr itten f

indings in e ach c ase. The trial court f ound in eac h case that5

Appellant wa s competent to sta nd trial at the time of the joint compe tency and plea hear ing and that Ap p el l an tre m ai n eds o un t i l s u ch t i m e a s a f i n a l j u d gm en twa s re n d er edi nb o th

. T h es e f i n d i n gs wer e made afte r re viewingevidenc e re l at i n g to Appellant’s compe tency , including the repor ts of Kar ty e and Be ll. Cf. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 4 6B .0 84 (a ) ( tr ia l c ourt may , a bs e nt t ime ly ob je c tio n, make a c omp e te nc y de te rm inatio n ba se d sole ly on re po rt fi le d) ; Bra df

ord , 172 S.W .3d at 5 (same ). These repor

ts pr ovided sufficie nt e vidence for the trial court to make its findings. Cf. id. Fur ther, these finding s were made within a r easona ble time afte r Dec ember

6, 2007, the date of the joint competency

and plea

hear ing. See S ch a

ff er , 5 8 3 S

. W

. 2 d

at 6 3 1 (o p . o nre h ’g) (Jul y 18, 1979 opinion abating for c ompetency finding s to be made reg ardingtrial that occ urre d on May 16, 1977). In light of the trial court’ s judicial determination as to Appe llant’s competenc e, we hold that the trial co u rt did not violate Appellant’s due pr ocess r ights by its resumption of proce eding s or acc eptanc e of A

ppellant’s gu i l t y

pleas. See Be ll , 8 14 S.W. 2d a t 23 3 ( fi nd ingno e rr or

wh e re c a se fi le c on ta ine d jud g me nt o f c omp e te nc y ); see also Godinez , 509 U.S. at 400, 113 S. Ct . at 2687 (trial court may

not acc ept def

endant’ s plea un le

ss defe ndant is le g ally competent to make p lea)

. Moreove r, the fa ilure, if any , by the trial cour

t to follow the require ments of Article 46B.084 dur ing the Dec ember

6, 2007 joint competency and plea hear ing w as not prese rved f or appe llate re view beca use Appe llant, an individual determined to be competent, failed to ra ise a c omplaint before the trial court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 33 .1 (s e tti ng fo rt h the g e ne ra l ru le of er ror pre se rv a tio n) ; c f. Bra df ord , 172 S.W .3d at 6 (holding err or prese rved wher e rec ord bef ore it conta ined no evidenc e that trial court had found def endant c ompetent). The ref ore, w e over

rule Appe llant’s first and sec ond iss ue s.
C ON SECU TI V E S ENTEN C ES In his third issue, Appellant argues that his sentenc es could not b e o rd er ed to run c on se c uti ve ly

be c a us e the fi rs t of

the tw o s e nte nc e s is vo id. Mo re sp e c if ic all y , App ell ant a sse rt s that, beca use the trial c ourt failed to fo l l o w t h e proc edure s of Article 46B.084 be fore resuming pr oc e e din g s, Ap pe lla

nt’ s f ir st s e nte nc e is p art

of a vo id j ud gment
. W e note , h ow e ve r, that w hil e Article 46B .084 does set for th the proce dure ne cessa ry for a tr i al co urt to resume c riminal6

proce eding s following a

judgme nt o f i n co m p et en ce, it does not ope rate to deprive a trial court of ong oing jur isdiction in t hat ca se. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 4 6B .0 84 . B e c a us e Ar tic le 46B.084 is not jurisdi ctional, we ove rrule A ppellant’s third issue. See Ni x v . St ate , 65 S.W .3d 664, 667-69 (Te x . Crim. App. 2001) (addr essing void judgments).

D I S P OS I T I ON We af fi rm the jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ourt
.



### BRIAN HO Y LE J ustice
Opinion delivere d Marc h 25, 2009. Pane l co ns i s t ed of

Wor t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)