X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Darnann Davis pled guilty in 1998 to injuring a child and placed on community supervision for six years. The state moved to adjudicate Davis’ guilt in July 2000, but in a jury trial on Davis’ competency to stand trial, the jury determined that he was incompetent. Davis was sent to Vernon State Hospital for psychiatric treatment. In January 2001, Vernon officials determined that Davis had regained competency to stand trial. The trial court bypassed the state’s motion and put Davis back on community supervision. In July 2001, the state filed a new motion to adjudicate Davis’ guilt. The state amended its motion in July 2002. A hearing on the amendment motion was not held for another five months, and the trial court didn’t rule until Jan. 14, 2003, at which time it found Davis violated the conditions of community supervision and sentenced him to three years in prison. On appeal, Davis argues the trial court should have seated a jury to determine Davis’ competency. He says that evidence raised during the hearing on the motion to adjudicate guilt indicated he may still be incompetent to stand trial. His second argument faults the trial court for refusing to admit a videotape of Davis’ trial testimony as part of a bill of exception. HOLDING:Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On the issue of impaneling a jury, the court joins the 4th, 5th, 7th and 11th Courts of Appeals have all agreed that they lack jurisdiction over trial court determinations to go forward with proceedings to adjudicate guilt. Even the 10th Court of Appeals initial ruling to the contrary has since been reined in by a subsequent ruling. “The Texas Legislature has expressly prohibited Texas appellate courts from reviewing issues relating to a trial court’s decision to proceed to an adjudication of guilt,” the court writes. “Counsel’s request for a jury to determine competency clearly occurred during the hearing to determine the merits of the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt. . . . Given these facts, we must conclude any alleged error occurred during the process of determining whether to proceed to an adjudication of guilt.” The court similarly rejects the admission of the videotape, which would allegedly have supported Davis’ contention that he was incompetent, because it, too, falls under the trial court’s decision to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. OPINION:Carter, J.; Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.