Court Opinion

ID: 9397754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 07:09:44.23191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:27.332739
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-20-00234-CR
                               __________________

                   MATTHEW LYLE ADDISON, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 258th District Court
                         Polk County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 2018-0011
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On September 3, 2020, the trial court convicted Matthew Lyle Addison of

driving while intoxicated and sentenced Addison to confinement in the Polk County

Jail for 10 days. In his appeal brief, Addison argued in part that his right to due

process had been violated because a mental evaluation was necessary and ordered

by the trial court but never completed. On August 10, 2022, we abated the appeal

and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to determine the feasibility

of a retrospective competency evaluation.

                                         1
       On April 26, 2023, the State filed an unopposed motion to reinstate the

appeal, vacate the trial court’s judgment, and remand the case to the trial court. The

State informs the Court that the defendant is unable to cooperate with a competency

evaluation and it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the case.

      “The constitutional standard for competency to stand trial asks whether the

defendant has a sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable

degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual

understanding of the proceedings against him.” Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676,

689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “A criminal defendant who is incompetent may not be

put to trial without violating due process.” Id. at 688. Depending upon the quality

and quantity of the evidence available, in most cases a retrospective competency

inquiry may be conducted consistent with the requirements of due process. See

Barber v. State, 737 S.W.2d 824, 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). When a retrospective

competency hearing is not feasible, however, the appropriate disposition of the

appeal is to reverse the trial court’s judgment of conviction and to remand the case

for a new trial. See Greene v. State, 264 S.W.3d 271, 273 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

2008, pet. ref’d).

      The State contends a retrospective competency evaluation is not feasible and

asks this Court to vacate the judgment and remand the case to the trial court so that

the trial court may dismiss the case. Addison has not opposed the State’s motion.

                                            2
Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal, grant the State’s motion, vacate the judgment

of conviction, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings as justice

requires.

      VACATED AND REMANDED.

                                                      _________________________
                                                           JAY WRIGHT
                                                               Justice

Submitted on April 8, 2022
Opinion Delivered May 24, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

                                           3