Marcus Dewayne Hawkins v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 23, 2019
• Docket: 06-19-00103-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00103-CR

MARCUS DEWAYNE HAWKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 27925

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION A Lamar County jury found Marcus Dewayne Hawkins guilty of two counts of aggravated

sexual assault with a deadly weapon, one count of robbery, and one count of credit card or debit

card abuse. After a bench trial on punishment, Hawkins was sentenced to life imprisonment for

each count of aggravated sexual assault, thirty years’ imprisonment for robbery, and two years’

imprisonment for credit card or debit card abuse. On appeal, Hawkins challenges the qualifications

of the expert who found him competent to stand trial. Because Hawkins waived his sole point of

error for review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure specifies certain qualifying criteria for a

psychiatrist or psychologist appointed by a trial court to conduct a competency examination.

Under Article 46B.022,

(a) To qualify for appointment under this subchapter as an expert, a psychiatrist or psychologist must:

(1) as appropriate, be a physician licensed in this state or be a psychologist licensed in this state who has a doctoral degree in psychology; and

(2) have the following certification or training:

(A) as appropriate, certification by:

(i) the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology with added or special qualifications in forensic psychiatry; or

(ii) the American Board of Professional Psychology in forensic psychology; or

(B) training consisting of:

(i) at least 24 hours of specialized forensic training relating to incompetency or insanity evaluations; and

2 (ii) at least eight hours of continuing education relating to forensic evaluations, completed in the 12 months preceding the appointment.

(b) In addition to meeting qualifications required by Subsection (a), to be appointed as an expert a psychiatrist or psychologist must have completed six hours of required continuing education in courses in forensic psychiatry or psychology, as appropriate, in either of the reporting periods in the 24 months preceding the appointment.

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.022. Hawkins complains that nothing in the record

established that the psychologist appointed to conduct his competency examination met the

statutory requirements.

To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must first present to the trial court a timely

request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the desired ruling if not apparent from

the context. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); see Teixeira v. State, 89 S.W.3d 190, 192 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2002, pet. ref’d) (a complaint about the qualifications of an expert must be preserved

by a specific objection). Also, the trial court must have ruled on the request, objection, or motion,

either expressly or implicitly, or the complaining party must have objected to the trial court’s

refusal to rule. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(2). Hawkins made no complaint about the psychologist’s

qualifications to the trial court. As a result, we conclude that Hawkins failed to preserve his sole

point of error for our review.

3 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Scott E. Stevens Justice

Date Submitted: October 16, 2019 Date Decided: October 23, 2019

Do Not Publish