Troy James Clark v. State of Texas--Appeal from 379th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-01-00296-CR
Troy James CLARK,
Appellant
v.
STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2000-CR-5536
Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 12, 2003

AFFIRMED

Troy Clark was found guilty of possession of methamphetamines and sentenced to four years imprisonment. He now appeals. We hold that positive test results of illegal drug use are not alone sufficient evidence of incompetency to warrant a competency inquiry and affirm the judgment.

In his only point of error, Clark alleges that the trial court erred in not sua sponte holding a competency inquiry because the influence of illegal drugs made him incompetent and therefore not subject to sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, Clark disputed the results of a presentence investigation urinalysis test that was positive for marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Because he denied having a drug problem, Clark was given the option of taking a second urinalysis. He again tested positive at even higher levels than the first test.

Because incompetency prevents sentencing, when evidence of the defendant's incompetency is brought to the attention of the court, an inquiry is required. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 42.07(2), 46.02 2(b) (Vernon 1979); see Casey v. State, 924 S.W.2d 946, 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A competency inquiry is required only when there is sufficient evidence to create a bona fide doubt in the judge's mind as to the defendant's competency. See Alcott v. State, 51 S.W.3d 596, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). As a general rule, "a 'bona fide' doubt is raised only if the evidence indicates recent severe mental illness, at least moderate mental retardation, or truly bizarre acts by the defendant." Reeves v. State, 46 S.W.3d 397, 399 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. dism'd.) (citing Collier v. State, 959 S.W.2d 621, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).

Clark did not raise the issue of incompetency at sentencing and made rational responses to questions from the trial court, offered excuses for the positive test results, and had discussions with his attorney. There is no evidence either that he was still under the influence of illegal drugs at the time of the hearing or of how that influence could have affected his competency. We hold that the positive test for illegal drugs did not warrant a competency inquiry. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Do not publish