Court Opinion

ID: 9641395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:30:34.961279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:37.137373
License: Public Domain

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice,
concurring.
The criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due process,1 as does the conviction of an incompetent defendant.2 Consequently, to protect a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights, a trial court has no choice but to inquire into the defendant’s mental competence when the issue is sufficiently raised.3 Further, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “[i]f the issue of the defendant’s incompetency to stand trial is raised after the trial on the merits begins, the court may determine the issue at any time before the sentence is pronounced.” 4 I believe therefore that we should explicitly reject the State’s argument that this court’s consid*833eration of Appellant’s issue violates article 42.12, section 5(b)5 and that we should join our sister court in Houston in examining on the merits the competency issue under article 46B.005 in cases involving revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision.6
In the two cases before us, I agree with the majority that the record shows that Appellant offered no evidence from any source that he was not competent to stand trial and that the trial court carefully questioned Appellant before making a specific finding of competence and proceeding with the adjudication hearing. I therefore also agree that the trial court had no duty to grant Appellant’s motion for a competency examination and that the trial court’s judgments should consequently be affirmed.

. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171-73, 95 S.Ct. 896, 903-04, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); Alcott v. State, 51 S.W.3d 596, 598 (Tex.Crim.App.2001).

. McDaniel v. State, 98 S.W.3d 704, 709 (Tex.Crim.App.2003).

. Id. (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, 86 S.Ct. 836, 838, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966)).

. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.005(d) (Vernon Supp.2005).

. See id. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005).

. See McGowan v. State, No. 14-05-00139-CR, 2006 WL 56105, at *1-3 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 12, 2006, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication) (addressing McGowan's claim that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a hearing on his competency to stand trial prior to sentencing him); see also McGee v. State, 124 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d) (holding that denial of motion for continuance which arose before and was not part of the determination to adjudicate guilt was appealable despite article 42.12, section 5(b)).