Criminal Cases decided by the 5th Court of Appeals on July 6, 2017

The 5th Court of Appeals decided PAUL KENDALL DANAHY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee, on July 6, 2017.

The Court issued a memorandum opinion dismissing Appellant’s appeal for Possession or Promotion of Child Pornography.

The case was on appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court in Dallas County, Texas, as Trial Court Cause No. F12-24639-R.

The Court dismissed the appeal after Appellant filed a motion to dismiss stating that he no longer wished to appeal his case.

The 5th Court of Appeals also decided ANDREA LANE WHITNEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee, on July 6, 2017.

The Court issued a memorandum opinion dismissing Appellant’s appeal for Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence.

The case was on appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court in Collin County, Texas, as Trial Court Cause No. 380-80493-2016.

The Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that they did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a dismissal.

Finally, the 5th Court of Appeals decided TYREN DESHUN PHILLIPS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

The Court issued a memorandum opinion dismissing Appellant’s appeal for Burglary of a Habitation.

The case was on appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1 in Dallas County, Texas, as Trial Court Cause No. No. F-1557777-H.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. From the court:

Tyren Deshun Phillips appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him guilty of burglary of a habitation. In three issues, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an informal competency evaluation, the evidence is insufficient to prove he violated the terms of his community supervision by committing aggravated robbery, and the trial court erred by sentencing him to a term of sixteen years. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

When the revocation hearing began, appellant’s counsel informed the trial court that appellant chose not to go into the courtroom, but rather to remain in a cell where the proceedings would be broadcast to him. Counsel advised him not to take that action, but he refused to follow counsel’s advice. After a lunch break, appellant appeared in the courtroom. He told the trial judge that he did not like his counsel and they did not get along. The judge reviewed the proceedings with appellant, including the State’s allegations in the motion to revoke, the State’s burden of proof, and that he could face consecutive sentences. Appellant acknowledged he understood these matters. Appellant also made clear that he would not accept any plea bargain. Appellant’s counsel never informed the trial court that he had any concern for appellant’s competency or that appellant lacked sufficient ability to consult with him or understand the proceedings against him. After reviewing the record, we conclude the evidence does not support any of the 46B.024 factors or any other indication appellant was incompetent. Although appellant told the trial judge that he takes “psych meds,” having a mental illness does not mean a person is incompetent. See Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676, 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to sua sponte conduct an informal inquiry into appellant’s competency to stand trial. We overrule appellant’s first issue.

The court similarly dismissed the other issues.


LEGAL TERMS OF USE & DISCLAIMER
This article is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or create an client-lawyer relationship among any individuals or entities. All views expressed in this article or at the linked web pages are those of the responsible writer on a particular date, and should not necessarily be attributed to this writer, his law firm, or its clients. NOTHING IN THIS WEBSITE CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE, and the information contained herein should never be used as a substitute for consulting a lawyer. No warranty is made as to the thoroughness or accuracy of any content. Users of this site release and hold harmless all individuals and entities who author articles on this site for any information collected regarding visitors to this site as well as for any other harm resulting from visitors' use of this site. The views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the author, or of the author's clients.

Criminal Cases decided by the 5th Court of Appeals on July 6, 2017 – The Dallas Lawyer