Gilley, Brian Shawn
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and got 30 years in prison.
- Before trial, the court held a Rule 601(a)(2) competency examination of the child in chambers without appellant or his counsel present.
- The trial court found the child competent after the in camera examination.
- Appellant challenged the exclusion as violating Sixth Amendment and Texas confrontation and counsel rights; Court of Appeals rejected some grounds and left others unresolved.
- This Court granted discretionary review limited to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage, and held the competency proceeding was not a critical stage, affirming the court of appeals.
- The decision rests on whether pretrial competency proceedings require counsel to ensure fairness and effective representation at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of counsel from the Rule 601 competency hearing violated the Sixth Amendment. | Gilley argued counsel must be present at critical stages. | State contends pretrial competency is not a critical stage; no error. | No Sixth Amendment violation; competency hearing not a critical stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stincer v. United States, 482 U.S. 730 (1987) (competency hearing not automatically critical stage; presence of counsel depends on fairness)
- United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300 (1973) (pretrial proceedings require aid to defend; but depends on context of relief and confrontation)
- Green v. State, 872 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (critical stage assessment; not every pretrial event is critical)
- Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (personal presence rights at in-chambers meetings; statutory not decisive for Sixth Amendment scope)