Court Opinion

ID: 9555613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 16:16:07.577191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:08.244276
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued August 10, 2023.

                                      In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                          First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                              NO. 01-18-00600-CR
                            ———————————
                  KRISTIAN JOSEPH LAFLASH, Appellant
                                        V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 355th District Court
                             Hood County, Texas
                        Trial Court Case No. CR13693

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Kristian Joseph Laflash pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony

offense of indecency with a child by sexual contact pursuant to an agreed punishment

recommendation from the State. The trial court deferred adjudication of his guilt
and placed Appellant on community supervision for eight years. The trial court

certified that Appellant’s case was a plea-bargain case, that Appellant had waived

his appellate rights, and thus, Appellant did not have a right to appeal. The State,

alleging violations of the terms and conditions of his community supervision, later

moved to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt of the charged offense. After a hearing, the

trial court found three allegations true, found Appellant guilty of the charged offense,

and assessed his punishment at confinement for eighteen years. Appellant filed the

present appeal from the judgment adjudicating his guilt. In two issues, he argued he

did not have the mental competency to waive his constitutional rights during his plea

hearing or to participate in the hearing to adjudicate guilt.

      On December 10, 2020, a different Panel of this Court issued an order holding

the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an informal inquiry into

Appellant’s competency to stand trial during the hearing on the State’s motion to

adjudicate. The Court abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court

ordering the trial court to determine whether it was feasible to conduct a

retrospective competency inquiry, and, if so, to conduct an informal inquiry into

Appellant’s competency to stand trial. If the informal inquiry established there was

“some evidence from any source . . . that would support a finding that [Appellant]

may be incompetent to stand trial,” we ordered the trial court to then conduct a

                                           2
formal competency trial. Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676, 692 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013) (quoting TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 46B.004(c)).

      The supplemental clerk’s record and reporter’s record from the remanded

competency proceedings filed in this Court reflect that after a formal competency

trial, the trial court found Appellant “was competent to stand trial at the November

2017 plea hearing and [at] the May 2018 adjudication hearing.” Because the trial

court determined the question of Appellant’s competency to stand trial, we lifted the

abatement and reinstated the appeal on the Court’s active docket on April 6, 2023.

We also informed Appellant that his appeal appeared to be moot, thus depriving this

Court of jurisdiction. We instructed Appellant that his appeal might be dismissed

for want of jurisdiction unless he filed a written response by April 18, 2023, citing

relevant portions of the record, statutes, rules, and case law, establishing why this

Court has jurisdiction over his appeal.

      Appellant did not respond to our April 6, 2023 order. On July 11, 2023, the

Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal for

want of prosecution unless he filed a response, by no later than July 27, 2023, to our

April 6, 2023 order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (stating court may dismiss appeal

for want of prosecution); id. 42.3(c) (stating court may dismiss appeal if appellant

“has failed to comply with . . . a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other

action within a specified time”). To date, Appellant has not filed a response.

                                          3
      We dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to respond to

notices from this Court. See id. 42.3(b), (c).

                                   PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.

                                          4