1 

No. 06-15-00049-CR

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA 

KELLY RAY TADLOCK,

Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee 

Appealed in Cause No. 1424225 

8

th Judicial District Court of Hopkins County, Texas 

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE 

 By:/s/ Nicholas C. Harrison 

 Nicholas C. Harrison 

Assistant District Attorney 

 State Bar No 24062768 

ACCEPTED

06-15-00049-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

7/15/2015 1:58:24 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/15/2015 1:58:24 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................3

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT........................................................................ 4

ISSUES PRESENTED........................................................................................ 4

APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW..............................................................4

STATE'S ARGUMENT...................................................................................... 5

I. The evidence was legally and factually sufficient......................................................5

II. The Trial Court was not required to conduct a mental competency inquiry.......................6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF...................................................................................... 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE............................................................................. 10
3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Moreno Denoso v. State, 156 S.W. 3d 166 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2005) ............................... 4

Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)..................................................4

Lahood v. State, 171 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 2005)...............................4

Zapata v. State, 493 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)................................................7

Hackbarth v. State, 617 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)...........................................7

Grider v. State, 69 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2002)...........................................7

Durgan v. State, 259 S.W.3d 219 (Tex. App. Beaumont 2008).........................................8

Lindsey v. State, 310 S.W.3d 186 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2010)..........................................9

Rules

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 46B.004(b);................................................................................ 6
4

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The evidence presented to the fact finder was legally and factually sufficient to support 

Appellant’s conviction. The Trial Court was not required under the law to conduct a mental 

competency inquiry.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Appellant presents two issues for review: (1) Whether the evidence was legally and factually 

sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction; and (2) Whether the Trial Court erred by not 

conducting a mental competency inquiry.

APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Legal Sufficiency. In evaluating the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the question is 

whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational 

trier of fact could have found each essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, 

based on all the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom. Moreno Denoso v. State, 156 

S.W.3d 166 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2005).

Factual Sufficiency. In evaluating the factual sufficiency of the evidence, the Court

views the evidence without the prism of “in the light most favorable to the prosecution” and sets 

aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be 

clearly wrong and unjust. Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

Mental Competency. A Trial Court’s decision whether to conduct a competency inquiry 

is reviewed by the Court of Appeals under an abuse of discretion standard. Lahood v. State, 171 

S.W.3d 613 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 2005).
5

STATE’S ARGUMENT

I. The evidence presented to the fact finder was legally and factually sufficient to 

support Appellant’s conviction.

The evidence presented to the Trial Court, acting as fact finder in a bench trial, was 

legally and factually sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction. Appellant was convicted of 

one count of Indecency with a Child by Contact against the Victim, A.J., and Appellant was 

acquitted of one count of Indecency with a Child by Contact against the Victim’s older sister, 

S.J.

Indecency with a Child by Contact is an offense under §21.11(a) of the Texas Penal 

Code. The elements of the offense are that (1) the Defendant, (2) on or about a certain date, (3) in 

a certain county, (4) with the Victim, a child younger than 17 years of age and not the spouse of 

Appellant, (5) engaged in sexual contact, (6) with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual 

desires of Appellant.

The evidence at trial consisted of the testimony of seven fact witnesses called by the State

alone, including the Victim, her older sister, her mother, a peace officer, a forensic interviewer 

with specialized training in child abuse, and others. Several exhibits were admitted, including a 

photograph of Appellant used for identification purposes, a Child Advocacy Center forensic 

interview of the Victim, and a demonstrative diagram exhibit of the female body.

At trial, the Victim positively identified Appellant. She testified that the offense occurred 

during the summer of 2014. She stated that the offense occurred in the living room of her house. 

She testified that Appellant touched her genitalia with his hand, over her clothes, and that he told 
6

her not to tell anyone. She also testified that she was seven years old at the time of trial. (Court

Reporter’s Record, Vol. VII, pgs. 170-177).

The Victim’s mother testified that during the summer of 2014, she and the Victim resided 

at a residence in Hopkins County, Texas. (Court Reporter’s Record, Vol. VII, pg. 43). She also 

identified Appellant as the Victim’s step-uncle and stated that he spent the night at her residence 

on more than one occasion during this time frame. (Court Reporter’s Record, Vol. VII, pg. 49).

The Victim’s mother also testified that the Victim made an outcry to her in that she said 

Appellant touched her on her vagina and made her touch him on his penis. (Court Reporter’s 

Record, Vol. VII, pg. 51).

During cross-examination, Appellant stated that he did have a conversation about “boy 

parts, girl parts, sex, and marriage” with the Victim and her sister. (Court Reporter’s Record, 

Vol. VII, pg. 47). He also testified to waking up with an erection as the Victim attempted to 

climb in his lap. (Court Reporter’s Record, Vol. VII, pg. 48). 

The evidence presented to the fact finder was legally and factually sufficient to support 

Appellant’s conviction. As a matter of law, the testimony of A.J. alone was sufficient without 

any corroboration to sustain the conviction. Texas Penal Code 38.07. However, the Victim’s 

testimony was corroborated as detailed above.

II. The Trial Court was not required under the law to conduct a mental competency 

inquiry.

If evidence suggesting the Defendant may be incompetent to stand trial comes to the 

attention of the Court, the Court on its own motion shall suggest that the Defendant may be 

incompetent to stand trial. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 46B.004(b). However, a sua sponte 
7

hearing is not required absent any significant facts being brought to the judge’s attention or 

absent circumstances and actions that should have indicated a need for a separate determination. 

Zapata v. State, 493 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). A Trial Court is relieved of any 

responsibility to hold a pretrial competency hearing when the Defendant announces ready and 

enters a plea without any suggestion of incompetency. Hackbarth v. State, 617 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1981).

In a recent case from the Texarkana Court of Appeals, the Court held that the denial of a 

jury hearing or pretrial psychological examination to determine the Defendant’s competency to 

stand trial was not an abuse of discretion, even though the Defendant had been diagnosed with 

paranoid schizophrenia five years previously and was still taking medication, hearing voices, and 

seeing visions, where the Trial Court found no evidence that the Defendant lacked sufficient 

ability to consult with his lawyer or that he did not have a rational or factual understanding of the 

proceedings against him. Grider v. State, 69 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2002). 

In the case at bar, Appellant’s attorney stated at a pretrial hearing,

“...I feel I’m prepared to go forward in this fashion based upon – I will also inform the 

Court that based upon my investigation thus far, I am aware of [Appellant’s] medications, his –

and have thoroughly investigated whether or not issues of competency – although I’m not an 

expert, I am aware and [Appellant] should be able to recite to the Court all the medications he’s 

on, any maladies that he’s had over the course of the years. But it’s my understanding that he 

wanted to proceed in this fashion, and I am prepared either way, Your Honor.” (Court Reporter’s 

Record, Vol. IV, pgs. 10-11). 
8

The Trial Court then stated that he was not aware of anything that would deem Appellant

incompetent to stand trial. The Trial Court discussed medications with Appellant and then asked 

if Appellant understood the proceedings against him, to which Appellant unequivocally 

responded that he did understand. (Court Reporter’s Record, Vol. IV, pgs. 11-12).

Appellant’s attorney continued,

“Judge, I just brought that up, and I wanted him to certainly address that, that while he's 

been on these medications a number of years, he's only actually been back on a significant 

portion of them for -- since his incarceration, which was in July.··And so even though that's, in 

my opinion, been long enough that he knows how the medications react with him and that he is 

in full, I guess, capacities, the judge -- the Court just needed to be aware of it.

The Trial Court replied,

“Yeah.·I appreciate that. And again, I'm not seeing any indication of it, but do you feel 

like any of the numerous medications you're on right this moment cloud your judgment or impair 

your ability to think through this and make these important decisions?”

Appellant then clearly stated no. (Court Reporter’s Record, Vol. IV, pg. 13).

To prompt the Trial Court’s informal inquiry concerning the Defendant’s competency, 

the evidence must raise a bona fide doubt in the mind of the trial judge to the Defendant’s 

competency to stand trial. Durgan v. State, 259 S.W.3d 219 (Tex. App. Beaumont 2008). 

Evidence is usually sufficient to create a bona fide doubt about a Defendant’s competency if it 

shows recent, severe mental illness, at least moderate retardation, or truly bizarre acts by the 

Defendant. Lindsey v. State, 310 S.W.3d 186 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2010).
9

In Appellant’s case, no evidence was presented that would suggest incompetency. In fact, 

according to his attorney, he was able to consult extensively with counsel and with his

investigator in preparation for trial. (Court Reporter’s Record, Vol. IV, pg. 10). As detailed 

above, he was able to interact meaningfully with the Trial Court in a frank discussion about his 

medications and his ability to participate in his own defense. Appellant, his attorney, and the 

Trial Court fully discussed the issue of competency. Neither before, during, nor after trial has 

Appellant presented any evidence of incompetency.

Originally, Appellant pled guilty to the offense and the Trial Court reset the case in order 

to conduct a Presentencing Investigation (PSI). However, during the PSI, Appellant stated that he

was not in fact guilty. At a subsequent pretrial hearing, Appellant stated, “I’m not just – I’m not 

guilty – I – I believe that if the girls say that I violated them in some way, then I must have.” 

(Court Reporter’s Record, Vol. V, pg. 16).

Appellant now argues that this behavior should have put the Trial Court on notice of an 

issue of competency. The State acknowledges that Appellant had difficulty admitting that he 

engaged in the deviant behavior he was charged with. Reluctance, ambivalence, and reticence to 

admit culpability, however, are not evidence of mental incompetency but rather a lack of candor. 

·

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The State requests that this Court AFFIRM Appellant’s conviction.

 By:/s/ Nicholas C. Harrison

 Nicholas C. Harrison
10

Assistant District Attorney

 State Bar No 24062768

P.O. Box 882

Sulphur Springs, Texas 75483

(903) 885-0641

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was 

forwarded to counsel for Appellant, Frank Hughes, on this the 15

th day of July, 2015.

 By:/s/ Nicholas C. Harrison

 Nicholas C. Harrison

Assistant District Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

I certify that this document contains 1645 words according to the counting tool in the 

program used to generate this document.

 By:/s/ Nicholas C. Harrison

 Nicholas C. Harrison

Assistant District Attorney