Lindsey v. State, 544 S.W.3d 14

Lindsey lived with the complainant; police responded after the complainant reported Lindsey had strangled him repeatedly and documented injuries. Lindsey was indicted for assault by strangulation of a family member with a prior family-assault conviction; Lindsey pled not guilty and stipulated to the prior.
Lindsey repeatedly sought to proceed pro se; after colloquies and the appointment of a legal advisor the trial court permitted Lindsey to represent himself.
During voir dire and trial Lindsey frequently spoke out of turn, rambled, expressed confusion, questioned witnesses ineffectively, and made comments about not being on medication; a venire member expressed concern about Lindsey’s competency to proceed.
Lindsey called character witnesses (who testified Lindsey had been diagnosed bipolar and had at times taken medication) but did not present expert or medical evidence of current incapacity; Lindsey chose not to testify after being warned about the limits that choice imposes on closing argument.
The jury convicted Lindsey of the lesser-included offense (assault against a family member) and sentenced him to twenty years' confinement.
On appeal Lindsey argued (1) the trial court erred by not sua sponte conducting an informal competency inquiry and (2) his waiver of counsel was not knowing; Lindsey conceded the waiver argument at oral submission, and the court addressed only the competency claim.

Issue	Lindsey's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by failing to sua sponte conduct an informal competency inquiry under article 46B.004	Lindsey: trial conduct (rambling, confusion, distrust of advisor, inappropriate behavior) and testimony that he had bipolar disorder and was off medication should have put court on notice to inquire	State: record shows Lindsey understood proceedings, made rational choices (including waiving counsel and electing not to testify), and no credible current evidence of incompetence appeared	Court: No abuse of discretion; record contained no evidence showing Lindsey was incompetent to stand trial

Fletcher v. State, 474 S.W.3d 389 (noting standards for a valid waiver of counsel)
Hobbs v. State, 359 S.W.3d 919 (reviews trial court's failure to inquire into competency for abuse of discretion)
Kostura v. State, 292 S.W.3d 744 (competency defined by ability to consult with counsel and rational/factual understanding)
Montoya v. State, 291 S.W.3d 420 (discusses bona fide doubt requirement prior to statutory amendment)
Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676 (statutory framework for competency inquiries and effect of mental-illness history)
Lewis v. State, 532 S.W.3d 423 (distinguishes lack of legal skill from incompetence)
McDaniel v. State, 98 S.W.3d 704 (past bipolar diagnosis alone does not mandate inquiry absent current indications)
George v. State, 446 S.W.3d 490 (courtroom decorum violations do not necessarily indicate incompetence)
Jackson v. State, 391 S.W.3d 139 (history of mental illness insufficient without present impairment affecting capacity)