Court Opinion

ID: 9644671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:01:36.847568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:23.883718
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge
(dissenting).
In his motion for rehearing the appellant again urges that the trial judge should have *673excused the jury and conducted a separate hearing on the appellant’s incompeteney to stand trial. See Art. 46.02, V.A.C.C.P. The majority overrules this motion without written opinion. I believe the motion should be granted.
In his brief on rehearing appellant calls our attention to Ex Parte Halford, 536 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), in which this Court held that there was sufficient evidence to raise an issue of Halford’s incompetency to stand trial. This Court granted Halford habeas corpus relief on this issue, relying principally on Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), even though Pate was decided some three years after Halford’s trial.
As appellant correctly points out, the circumstances in this case raise an even greater doubt about the appellant’s competency than did those in Halford. This is especially true when one considers that the trial judge here had the benefit of the holding in Pate v. Robinson to guide him. See also Townsend v. State, 427 S.W.2d 55 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Ainsworth v. State, 493 S.W.2d 517 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); and Cavender v. State, 515 S.W.2d 277 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
The trial judge should have stopped the trial and conducted a separate competency hearing. His failure to do so was reversible error. Ex parte Halford, supra; Cavender v. State, supra.
The judgment should be reversed.