Lahood, Ex Parte Michael George
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 938
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Michael LaHood was convicted by a jury of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault (sentenced to 30 years concurrent); convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- On habeas, LaHood alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and raise his alleged incompetency to stand trial based on a history of mental illness and medication issues while jailed.
- Trial counsel acknowledged knowledge of past mental-health issues and medications but concluded LaHood was malingering and did not seek a competency evaluation; some trial notes she relied on could not be located.
- During trial LaHood had outbursts, complained about missed psychoactive medication doses, reported seeing blinking lights, and later attempted suicide after conviction but before sentencing.
- The habeas court found counsel’s explanations credible; the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded for further fact-finding, then ultimately held counsel’s failure to investigate was deficient but LaHood failed to prove prejudice (no reasonable probability he would have been found incompetent).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was constitutionally deficient for not investigating or raising LaHood's competency | LaHood: counsel observed indicia of incompetency and knew of prior mental illness and medications, so she should have sought an evaluation | State/counsel: counsel reasonably concluded LaHood was malingering and competent; she made strategic decisions after investigating available leads | Court: Counsel’s decision not to further investigate was unreasonable and therefore constitutionally deficient |
| Whether LaHood was prejudiced (reasonable probability he would have been found incompetent if raised) | LaHood: medication misadministration and trial behavior show decompensation and a reasonable probability a fact-finder would find him incompetent | State: record shows lucid, goal-directed testimony, ability to present a defense, and no affirmative proof he lacked capacity to consult or understand | Court: No prejudice — LaHood did not carry burden to show reasonable probability he would have been found incompetent |
| Appropriate remedy if prejudice shown (retrospective competency inquiry vs. new trial) | LaHood: (if prejudice shown) would support relief consistent with precedent | State: not reached because no prejudice established | Court: Did not decide because prejudice was not shown; question left unresolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (defense counsel performance and prejudice standard for ineffectiveness)
- Sisco v. State, 599 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for when informal competency inquiry and empaneling a jury are required)
- Barber v. State, 737 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App.) (competency/incompetency after-the-fact hearing framework)
- Williams v. State, 663 S.W.2d 832 (Tex. Crim. App.) (competency standards and related procedural holdings)
- Ex parte Martinez, 330 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. Crim. App.) (application of Strickland and duty to investigate)
- Morris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 281 (Tex. Crim. App.) (factors relevant to competency and evidentiary focus for informal inquiry)