Marc Allen Mason v. State
07-14-00345-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 9, 2015Background
- Marc Allen Mason was arrested for burglary on November 20, 2012; indicted March 20, 2013, and remained jailed until conviction on September 18, 2014 (≈22 months in custody).
- Multiple psychiatric evaluations to assess competency/insanity were scheduled (June 6, 2013; March 21, 2014; August 14, 2014) but none were completed due to transport failures, Mason’s refusal, and an examiner’s declination after Mason discharged counsel.
- Counsel changes: initial appointed counsel on March 21, 2013; new counsel appointed May 13, 2014; Mason filed pro se competency and Sixth Amendment complaints during proceedings.
- Mason filed a formal Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy Trial on September 2, 2014 and a Motion to Reinstate Psychiatric Examination on September 11, 2014; both denied at a September 15, 2014 pretrial hearing; jury selection began that day.
- Jury convicted Mason of burglary with two prior-felony enhancements; sentence: 17 years and $5,000 fine. Mason appealed asserting (1) speedy-trial violation and (2) trial court erred by not staying proceedings pending competency resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Mason's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mason's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated | 22-month pretrial incarceration, delay caused in part by sheriff’s conduct and trial delays prejudiced defense | Delay was largely attributable to competency/insanity issues and some delay due to Mason’s own noncooperation; Mason was not sufficiently diligent in asserting the right | Court held no speedy-trial violation after balancing Barker factors (delay triggered review but overall neutral/against violation) |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by refusing to stay proceedings to resolve competency | Trial court should have delayed further for formal competency determination given pending competency concerns | Mason delayed and resisted examinations; trial court reasonably concluded claimed incompetence may be a delay tactic and did not abuse discretion | Court affirmed that proceeding without further formal competency hearing was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor balancing test for speedy-trial claims)
- Johnson v. State, 954 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App.) (review standard: deference to trial court for historical facts; de novo legal application)
- State v. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d 818 (Tex. Crim. App.) (delay length threshold and speedy-trial analysis)
- McIntosh v. State, 307 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. App.—San Antonio) (diligence in asserting speedy-trial right)
- Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for competency proceedings)
- Salahud-din v. State, 206 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi) (waiver for failure to object to proceeding without additional pretrial psychological evaluations)
- Harrison v. State, 282 S.W.2d 718 (Tex. App.—Amarillo) (prejudice from unavailable witness requires showing the testimony would have benefited the defense)