Kelly Ray Tadlock v. State
06-15-00049-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 13, 2015Background
- Defendant Kelly Ray Tadlock, charged with two counts of indecency with a child (two sisters, referred to as CWA and CWS); indicted after CAC interviews following outcry to mother (July 2014).
- Defendant initially pleaded guilty on December 17, 2014; a presentence investigation (PSI) was ordered; during PSI the defendant stated he was not guilty and felt pressured; the court refused the guilty plea on December 31, 2014 and set the case for bench trial.
- Bench trial (waiver of jury) held February 2015: defendant found guilty on one count (involving CWA), not guilty on the other (CWS); sentenced to 20 years; notice of appeal filed.
- Defense argues (1) conviction is against the great weight/insufficiency of the evidence because of inconsistencies in complainants’ accounts and possible coaching; (2) trial court abused discretion by failing to sua sponte order a psychiatric/competency exam given defendant’s medication use, anxiety, and equivocal statements about guilt.
- On the record, the judge questioned the defendant, observed anxiety/trembling, and was informed of multiple prescribed medications; the judge, as a mental-health-experienced officer, concluded no bona fide doubt as to competency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Tadlock) | Held (trial-court action) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency/great-weight of the evidence | Evidence and complainant CWA’s testimony support conviction beyond reasonable doubt | Conviction is against the great weight because complainants contradicted each other, were potentially coached, and accounts changed over time | Court convicted on one count (found evidence sufficient for that count) and acquitted on the other count |
| 2. Competency/mental-health exam (sua sponte) | No requirement to order exam absent bona fide doubt; defendant was able to consult with counsel and understand proceedings | Defendant’s medication regimen, observed tremors/anxiety, and contradictory pleas raised bona fide doubt requiring a competency exam | Trial court declined to order a competency exam, concluding defendant’s presentation did not raise bona fide doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for legal-sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court) (constitutional sufficiency standard for conviction)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to factfinder on conflicting testimony and inferences)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App.) (evidentiary sufficiency principles)
- Collier v. State, 959 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. Crim. App.) (when a bona fide doubt of competency is raised)
- Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. App.) (prior mental-health treatment alone does not necessarily warrant competency hearing)
- Casey v. State, 924 S.W.2d 946 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defendant must be competent at sentencing; standard for Section 2(b) inquiry)
- Reeves v. State, 46 S.W.3d 397 (Tex. App.—Texarkana) (application of Section 2(b) competency-inquiry principles)