Nicholas Deonte Johnson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2 of Tarrant County

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 2-05-205-CR

2-05-206-CR

NICHOLAS DEONTE JOHNSON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

------------

Nicholas Deonte Johnson appeals from two convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In three issues, appellant complains that (1) the trial court erred by trying him because he had been adjudicated incompetent; (2) appellant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by not appointing appellant different trial counsel. In our abatement order previously issued in this appeal, we resolved appellant=s second and third issues against him but sustained the first issue, abated the appeal, and remanded the cause to the trial court for a judicial determination of whether appellant was competent at the time of his trial.[2]

The trial court held a hearing pursuant to our abatement order and determined that appellant was competent to stand trial at the time of his trial. Appellant=s appeal was reinstated upon our receipt of the supplemental record from the trial court hearing. In light of the trial court=s judicial determination that appellant was competent to stand trial at the time he was tried, we affirm the trial court=s judgments.[3]

PER CURIAM

PANEL F: CAYCE, C.J.; HOLMAN and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 10, 2006

[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

[2]Johnson v. State, Nos. 02-05-00205-CR, 02-05-00206-CR, 2006 WL _______, at *___ (Tex. App.CFort Worth June 22, 2006, order) (not designated for publication).

[3]See Bradford v. State, No. 02-04-00414-CR, 2005 WL 1926409, at *1 (Tex. App.CFort Worth Aug. 11, 2005, no pet.) (affirming adjudication of appellant=s guilt after trial court determined at post-conviction abatement hearing that appellant was competent at the time his guilt was adjudicated).