Rodney Wayne Robins v. State, 01-14-00582-CR

Background

Rodney Robins was tried for possession of 0.12 g of crack cocaine, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment after enhancement.
On the morning of trial Robins was non‑responsive: he refused to speak with the judge or counsel, remained mute during questioning, wore jail clothes, and did not sign a punishment election.
Defense counsel told the court he could not get responses from Robins about prior convictions or other matters.
The trial judge asked only whether Robins had previously been adjudicated incompetent; counsel answered "not to my knowledge," and the judge concluded Robins was merely refusing to cooperate.
Appellant contends these facts constituted a ‘‘suggestion’’ of incompetency under Tex. Crim. Proc. Code art. 46B.004(c‑1), triggering a mandatory informal inquiry that the court did not perform.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held / Relief Sought
Whether the trial court was required to conduct an informal competency inquiry when a suggestion of incompetency arose	Robins: his unexplained silence, failure to assist counsel, inappropriate courtroom attire, and refusal to make election constituted evidence/suggestion under art. 46B.004(c‑1) requiring an informal inquiry	State/Trial court: judge observed no indication of incompetence and reasonably concluded Robins was willfully mute; no further inquiry warranted	Appellant argues the court erred by not conducting the statutorily required informal inquiry and asks for reversal or remand for retrospective competency proceedings
Whether the trial court’s on‑the‑record remarks satisfied the statutory informal inquiry requirement	Robins: the brief on‑record exchange (one question to counsel and a conclusion) was legally insufficient; the court failed to ask relevant competency questions or attempt to gather information	State/Trial court: limited on‑record questions and counsel’s response were adequate to dispel suggestion	Appellant contends the minimal exchange did not satisfy art. 46B.004(c) and cites cases requiring a more meaningful inquiry
Whether failure to inquire caused constitutional/harmful error requiring reversal	Robins: error was structural/constitutional because an incompetent defendant cannot be tried; impact shown by trial in jail clothes and a juror admitting bias due to attire	State: (implied) any error was harmless or nonexistent because court found no sign of incompetence	Appellant urges reversal under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2 or, alternatively, abatement for retrospective competency evaluation
Whether retrospective competency proceedings are feasible/remedial alternative	Robins: if direct reversal is not granted, remand to determine feasibility of a nunc pro tunc competency trial (citing Turner)	State: (implied) retrospective determination may be impractical or unnecessary if court finds no error	Appellant requests abatement and remand if retrospective trial feasible; otherwise reversal and new trial

Key Cases Cited

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (establishes competency standard requiring ability to consult with counsel and understand proceedings)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (failure to provide adequate competency hearing violates due process)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (competency concerns must be addressed before trial to satisfy due process)
Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. Crim. App.) (any suggestion of incompetency requires informal inquiry; discusses post‑2011 statutory standard)
Luna v. State, 268 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. Crim. App.) (examples of sufficient informal inquiry when court repeatedly questions defendant and counsel)
Ex parte LaHood, 401 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App.) (informal inquiry requires consideration of evidence suggesting incompetency; court must identify some evidence more than a scintilla)
Oliver v. State, 999 S.W.2d 596 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (presentation of defendant in jail clothing can cause constitutional harm and influence jury)