Druery v. State
412 S.W.3d 523
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Marcus Druery was convicted of capital murder (death sentence in 2003) and, shortly before a scheduled 2012 execution, filed an Article 46.05 motion claiming he was incompetent to be executed due to active psychosis (schizophrenia) and delusional beliefs.
- Defense counsel sought records, expert evaluation, and time to compile evidence; the trial court set deadlines, denied repeated extensions, and criticized counsel for delay.
- Druery filed a timely Article 46.05 motion (and a supplement shortly before the hearing) supported by a psychological evaluation (Dr. Mosnik) and prison letters evidencing delusions and impaired rational understanding of his conviction and punishment.
- The State argued Druery knew he was to be executed and that awareness of the execution and its ostensible reason defeats incompetency under Panetti/Ford; the trial court denied relief, finding no "substantial showing."
- The Court of Criminal Appeals stayed the execution, reviewed the trial record de novo, held that Druery had made a "substantial showing" under Article 46.05, and remanded for full competency proceedings (appointment of at least two mental‑health experts and a hearing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCA has jurisdiction to review an unverified Article 46.05 motion | Druery: trial court held hearings on motion and attachments; lack of verification should not bar review | State: Article 46.05(c) requires verification | CCA: Under these circumstances (trial court considered motion, parties addressed substance, no objection), lack of verification did not bar appellate review |
| Whether Article 46.05(l) permits review of a trial court's denial at the threshold stage (Subsection (g)) | Druery: 2007 amendment intended to allow appeals by either party from threshold or final competency rulings | State: statute ambiguous; could be read to permit review only after Subsection (k) | CCA: Statute interpreted to allow review of determinations under Subsection (g) or (k); legislative history supports broad review |
| Proper standard for "substantial showing" to trigger full proceedings | Druery: threshold is more than some evidence; delusions and expert report establish need for factfinding | State: threshold requires showing defendant lacks awareness that he's to be executed or why; Druery knows date and reason | CCA: "Substantial showing" is a legal question reviewed de novo; it is more than "some evidence" but less than preponderance; if resolution requires weighing disputed material facts, a full hearing is required |
| Whether Druery made a substantial showing of incompetency | Druery: expert report, letters, and behavior show active psychosis preventing rational understanding of link between crime and punishment | State: Druery knows he was convicted and will be executed; Panetti-type delusions insufficient | CCA: Trial court erred by weighing competing evidence at threshold; Druery's submissions raised material factual disputes and credible evidence of incompetency, so he made a substantial showing and is entitled to further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (rational understanding inquiry and requirements for competency‑to‑be‑executed review)
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of the mentally incompetent)
- Green v. State, 374 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (discussing competency evidence and procedural protections)
- Patterson v. Dretke, 370 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2004) (post‑conviction review of state court threshold competency finding under federal habeas standards)
- Ex parte Golden, 991 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (verification formalities do not necessarily deprive courts of power to act when the motion was considered on the merits)
- Krause v. State, 405 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (statutory construction is a question of law reviewed de novo)