Background
After a bench trial, Earnest Johnson was convicted of aggravated assault of a public servant, possession of a controlled substance, evading arrest causing serious bodily injury, and resisting arrest. The trial court imposed concurrent or separate terms that included 40 years’ confinement for aggravated assault and evading arrest, 20 years for drug possession, and 365 days for resisting arrest.
Johnson’s competency had been evaluated repeatedly over several years. Some evaluators found him incompetent, while others could not reach a conclusion because he refused to cooperate. After treatment at a state hospital, one evaluator found him competent. A later evaluation again found him incompetent, but another evaluator concluded shortly before trial that he had the capacity to be competent. In August 2024, a jury found Johnson competent to stand trial, after which he waived a jury on the criminal charges and proceeded to a bench trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth Court of Appeals held that Johnson did not preserve his challenge to the exclusion of his pro se filings from the competency jury’s consideration. He initially said he did not intend to offer the filings as evidence and waited until both sides had rested before seeking their admission. He neither asked to reopen the evidence nor made an additional argument supporting admission.
The court also upheld the exclusion of attorney Brian Gutierrez’s proposed expert testimony about Johnson’s misunderstanding and misuse of legal concepts. A defendant’s lack of legal skill or technical legal knowledge does not establish incompetency, so the trial court reasonably found the testimony irrelevant to whether Johnson could understand the proceedings and rationally consult with counsel.
Finally, the court held that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury’s competency finding. Although the experts disagreed, testimony showed that Johnson understood the charges, punishment ranges, courtroom roles, plea bargaining, and relevant facts; could make reasoned choices; and communicated logically without demonstrated psychosis or delusional content. Deferring to the jury’s credibility determinations, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgments.
Key Takeaways
- A party may fail to preserve an evidentiary complaint by waiting until both sides have rested to offer the evidence without requesting that the case be reopened.
- A defendant’s misunderstanding or obstinate use of incorrect legal theories does not, by itself, establish incompetency to stand trial.
- When experts disagree about competency, an appellate court defers to the jury’s credibility and weight determinations if sufficient evidence supports its verdict.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes competency from legal sophistication. The relevant inquiry is whether a defendant has a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and can consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—not whether the defendant correctly understands legal doctrine or agrees with counsel’s strategy.
The opinion also underscores the importance of timely offering evidence during a competency proceeding and expressly requesting that the evidentiary record be reopened if an offer comes after the parties have rested.