414 S.W.3d 854
Tex. App.2013Background
- Appellant Ryan Hunter Brand pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery without an agreed recommendation on punishment; sentencing followed after a presentence investigation (PSI).
- The trial court ordered and received a PSI that included Brand’s family and criminal history, references to mental-health history, and an LSI-R recidivism assessment; it did not include a formal psychological evaluation.
- At sentencing the trial court assessed punishment and sentenced Brand to eight years’ imprisonment.
- Brand argued on appeal the trial court erred by failing to order, sua sponte, a psychological evaluation to be included in the PSI under article 42.12 § 9(i).
- Brand did not object at trial to the omission of a psychological evaluation and did not present evidence at sentencing showing a mental impairment that the court should have independently observed.
Issues
| Issue | Brand's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to order a psychological evaluation for inclusion in the PSI | Trial court had a duty to order a psychological evaluation sua sponte under art. 42.12 § 9(i) because Brand’s mental-health issues warranted it | No independent duty existed absent the judge’s observation or suggestion by a party that the defendant appears mentally impaired; Brand waived error by failing to object | Court affirmed: no duty to independently order evaluation; error waived for failure to object |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 357 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (trial judge may order investigative report/PSI when assessing punishment)
- Welch v. State, 335 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (when judge appears to observe mental impairment or a party suggests it, PSI must include psychological evaluation; failure to object waives complaint)