Lox Gorme v. State, 01-12-00551-CR

Appellant Lox Gorme was indicted for murder, pleaded guilty (waiving jury) on March 23, 2012, and was sentenced to 48 years’ imprisonment after a May 31, 2012 presentence hearing.
Pretrial counsel requested and the trial court ordered a court-ordered competency evaluation; licensed psychologist Ramon A. Laval examined Gorme on May 27, 2011.
Dr. Laval found Gorme coherent, with organized thought, able to understand charges and consequences, and able to consult with counsel; diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (and alcohol dependence) but concluded Gorme was competent to stand trial.
The PSI (May 25, 2012) noted Gorme said he was feeling better and hearing voices less intensely; at sentencing Gorme acknowledged still hearing voices but said they were quieter and testified coherently about the offense and remorse.
Appellant did not request a second competency evaluation before sentencing; the trial court admitted the PSI over defense objection but neither party requested an informal competency inquiry.
Appellant appealed, asserting the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a sua sponte informal inquiry into his competency to stand trial prior to sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not conducting a sua sponte informal competency inquiry before sentencing	Gorme: Court should have inquired sua sponte given his schizophrenia diagnosis, prior competency evaluation, and his statement that he still heard voices	State: Prior competency exam found Gorme competent; hearing and PSI showed coherent testimony and ability to consult with counsel; no credible source suggested incompetency at sentencing	Trial court did not abuse discretion; no reasonable basis to reopen inquiry given evaluator’s opinion and sentencing-stage observations

Brown v. State, 129 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (standard for reviewing failure to hold competency hearing)
Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (defendant presumed competent absent preponderance showing otherwise)
Montoya v. State, 291 S.W.3d 420 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (trial-court discretion review; statutory framework for competency inquiries)
Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mental illness alone does not establish incompetency; inquiry focuses on functional impairment)
Jackson v. State, 391 S.W.3d 139 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2012) (amended Article 46B.004 requires inquiry if any credible source suggests incompetency)
Iniquez v. State, 374 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. App. — Austin 2012) (application of competency statutes and inquiry standards)
Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (competency legal principles cited)