Marc Allen Mason v. State
07-14-00345-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Apr 9, 2015Background
- Marc Allen Mason was arrested Nov. 20, 2012 for burglary of a building; indicted March 20, 2013; convicted by jury and sentenced to 17 years and $5,000 fine after a Sept. 15–17, 2014 trial.
- Defense counsel sought competency/sanity evaluations; the trial court signed three orders for evaluations (April 2013, Feb. 2014, June 2014) but no completed report resolving competency occurred.
- Reasons evaluations stalled: sheriff failed to transport for the June 2013 appointment; Mason refused to cooperate at the March 21, 2014 exam; at the Aug. 14, 2014 exam Mason sought new counsel and the examiner declined to proceed without counsel.
- Defense filed a motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial on Sept. 2, 2014 (≈22 months after arrest) and a motion to reinstate a competency exam on Sept. 11, 2014; both were denied at a pretrial hearing on Sept. 15, 2014.
- Mason asserted during proceedings that he suffered from mental issues (claimed a wireless audio implant, reported prior bipolar diagnosis); the court allowed pro se motions and heard arguments but declined to stay proceedings or hold an informal competency inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mason's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated by the ~22‑month delay | Mason argued the delay from arrest to trial violated his speedy‑trial right and warranted dismissal | State argued delay was largely attributable to pending competency evaluations (many requested by defense), Mason’s obstruction of exams, and Mason did not timely assert a desire for a speedy trial; prejudice was not shown | Court denied relief: Barker factors weighed against finding a violation (delay triggered inquiry but reason for delay, defendant’s acquiescence, and lack of prejudice negated relief) |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by not sua sponte staying proceedings and conducting an informal competency inquiry | Mason argued his mental condition (implant belief, bipolar history) warranted a stay and at least an informal judicial inquiry into competency | State argued competency was never sufficiently raised: defense repeatedly requested exams but never affirmatively asserted incompetency or objected to lack of an informal inquiry; refusals to cooperate undermined incompetency claim | Court found no abuse of discretion: pro se motions and behavior did not amount to evidence that Mason lacked ability to consult with counsel or understand proceedings; error was not preserved in any event |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (constitutional speedy‑trial balancing test applies)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (delay approaching one year triggers Barker inquiry; acquiescence can attenuate presumption of prejudice)
- Dragoo v. State, 96 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App.) (treatment of delay and Barker factors)
- Harris v. State, 827 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Texas application of Barker)
- Ex parte McKenzie, 491 S.W.2d 122 (Tex. Crim. App.) (burden allocation on prejudice showing)
- Boitnott v. State, 48 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. App.—Texarkana) (preservation rules for competency hearing errors)