Ricardo Javid Lugo v. State, 02-15-00404-CR

Appellant Ricardo Javid Lugo pled guilty to indecency with a child by contact and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment; he also received deferred adjudication in a separate case not appealed here.
After the plea and before sentencing, the trial court ordered psychological testing as part of a presentence investigation; the PSI contained no evidence of incompetence.
Lugo filed an unsigned pro se motion requesting psychiatric testing and later presented testimony from a psychologist who described chronic mental-health/sexual-offender treatment needs and opined Lugo functioned emotionally like a twelve-year-old.
At sentencing, Lugo answered the court’s questions in English coherently; he received the required statutory admonishments at plea.
Lugo argued on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a sua sponte informal competency inquiry and that his guilty plea was involuntary due to trial counsel’s ineffective assistance (failure to pursue competency proceedings, investigate mental health, request institutional commitment, or confirm English comprehension).
The court found no credible suggestion of legal incompetency at sentencing and held Lugo did not rebut the presumption of competent counsel or voluntariness of his plea.

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	Lugo: multiple post-plea irregularities and motions/psychologist testimony should have put court on notice of incompetency	State: no credible representation or evidence showed Lugo lacked present ability to consult with counsel or understand proceedings	No abuse of discretion; no suggestion of incompetency requiring inquiry
Whether Lugo’s guilty plea was involuntary because admonishments were in English and he may not have understood them	Lugo: written admonishments were English-only; limited schooling in Mexico and mental issues undermined understanding	State: court’s oral questioning showed Lugo understood in English; statutory admonishments were given	Plea presumed voluntary after admonishments; Lugo failed to rebut presumption
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance causing an involuntary plea	Lugo: counsel failed to investigate mental-health, failed to file competency motion, failed to seek institutional commitment, and failed to verify English comprehension	State: record shows no evidence of legal incompetency; counsel’s choices were within range of reasonable professional conduct; strong presumption of adequate assistance	Ineffective-assistance claim rejected; Lugo did not prove deficient performance or prejudice

Montoya v. State, 291 S.W.3d 420 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard of review for trial court’s decision not to inquire into competency)
Ross v. State, 133 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (deference to trial court’s firsthand assessment of competency)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (competency requires sufficient present ability to consult with counsel and rational/factual understanding)
Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (clarifying competency standards and distinctions from mental illness)
Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (proper admonishments create prima facie showing of plea voluntariness)
Ex parte Moody, 991 S.W.2d 856 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (two-part test for ineffective assistance affecting voluntariness of plea)
Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (strong presumption that counsel’s performance was adequate)
Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (mental impairment alone does not require competency hearing)
Jackson v. State, 391 S.W.3d 139 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2012) (past emotional issues alone do not show incompetency to be sentenced)