THE INCOMPETENCY OF THE
TEXAS COMPETENCY LAW 46B

The question of competence to stand trial relates to a criminal defendant's mental state at the time of trial , not at the time of the alleged criminal act, as in the case of an insanity defense. In the state of Texas, article 46B of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs competency to stand trial.

According to article 46B.003(b), a defendant is presumed competent to stand trial and "shall" be found competent to stand trial unless proved incompetent by a preponderance of evidence.

The legislative intent of article 46B seems clear, but when an unscrupulous doctor like Lisa Kay Clayton colludes with the likes of a lazy and unethical bigot such as public defender Thomas R. Grett, and then they appear before a judge like Karen Jane Greene whose main concern is how quickly the courts docket can be cleared of cases, the results could prove disastrous for a defendant as in my case; and in turn prove to become a very costly charade which the taxpayers of Texas are left to foot the bills for as a result of unjust and unnecessary competency evaluations and subsequent commitments to the states mental hospitals.

The case of Lakeith Amir-Sharif (Cause No. F0273127) not only epitomizes the inept and ineffective legal representation being provided to indigent defendants through the Dallas County Indigent Defense System, but it also raises legitimate concerns that there must closer oversight and amendments made to the state's competency law, and the Fair Defense Act which mandates that each county in Texas set out objective standards that each attorney in Dallas County must meet before they qualify to represent indigent defendants.

Everyone who has heard about my ordeal has been shocked by the fact that despite all the other thing wrong, I was "NEVER" taken before Judge Karen Greene so she could see and speak to me for herself before issuing her orders; which is unimaginable and clearly unacceptable given the life altering decisions Judge Greene was entrusted with making.

Had Judge Greene taken the time and requested that I be brought into her courtroom, she could have learned firsthand that I was and have always been very competent and capable of standing trial for the technical violation of a criminal mischief probation which I was placed in jail for. She could have also placed herself qualifiedly in a position to make objective rulings on the matter raised concerning my competency, but she failed to do so, and thus allowed our system of justice to fail.

Per the order of judge Greene, on March 17, 2005, Dr. Michael Pittman conducted an evaluation to determine my competency. This doctor's report states in pertinent part "In my opinion, Mr. Amir-Sharif does have a sufficient present ability to understand the proceedings against him. In my opinion, Mr. Amir-Sharif is competent to stand trial." Conventional wisdom and an honest interpretation of article 46B would lead you to believe that Dr. Pittman's report to the court should have been sufficient proof for this judge as to my competency, but public defender Thomas R. Grett had other tricks up his sleeve and made sure that it wasn't enough proof. Thomas R. Grett encouraged Judge Greene to order a second competency evaluation, which she did on March 30, 2005, absent any lawful justification for such action.

On April 07, 2005, Dr. Lisa Kay Clayton conducted her so-called competency evaluation. It was this doctor who knowingly committed the crime of aggravated perjury (Texas Penal Code section 37.03)by knowingly falsifying her report to the judge and then giving false testimony by alleging that her report was true and correct and that I was delusional, irrational and unable to understand the court proceedings against me or the possible consequences, her report therefore rendering me incompetent to stand trial.

It's ironic that while this doctor was committing the crime of perjury, I had filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus trying to seek my freedom through the Texas Supreme Court.

These scandalous and illegal actions by Judge Karen Jane Greene, Thomas R. Grett, Dr. Lisa Kay Clayton, and others involved, have resulted in taxpayers being billed over $35,000 (thirty five thousand and still counting) rather than the one time fee of $300 paid by the county for a [Dr. Pittman's] competency evaluation.

** It's worthy to note that in Cause No MA0521971K, Dr. Michael R. Pittman would in December 2005 prove to be equally as unethical as Dr. Lisa Kay Clayton**

What is Wrong with Article 46B and what the Dallas County Commissioners and the Texas State Legislators must do to correct it

1)    All competency evaluations must be held in a reasonably quiet and private area of the jail or courthouse, where both the doctor and the defendant can sit and talk to one another without excessive noises or unnecessary interferences, interruptions and distractions.

**   In my case, both evaluations were conducted in the noisy hallway adjacent to the courtroom where other defendants were sitting in holding cells awaiting their court appearances at the Frank Crowley Courts Building.

2)    When someone raises the issue of a defendant's competency to stand trial, the judge must act responsibly and ensure that the person suggesting that a defendant is incompetent has filed the required motions and supporting affidavits "BEFORE" the court issues any order for competency evaluations or initiates any competency proceedings.

**   In my case, on June 19, 2005, the court files were reviewed by court clerk supervisor Tina Cooper (214-653-5975) and a friend of mine. At that time it was discovered that contrary to the prerequisites of article 46B.004, the motions and supporting affidavits Thomas R. Grett is required to submit to judge Greene were "NEVER" filed. Why???

The law requires that these documents be filed "BEFORE" Judge Greene considers any competency issues and orders competency evaluations. For reasons yet to be explained, article 46B has knowingly and deliberately been violated by everyone involved in this matter. Why??? How many other defendants have been done this way?

3)   Once a suggestion is made and the judge has verified that the required motion(s) and supporting affidavit(s) have been properly filed, the judge must conduct their own informal fact finding inquiry which should include, but not be limited to, their having the defendant physically appear in open court for observation and questioning by the judge.

Judge Greene issued her orders despite her knowledge that my family and I had several discussions with her court coordinator Susan Sam and her court clerk about the pro-se motions I'd filed and our repeated request to be brought before the court on several occasions.

4)   The legislatures, County Commisioners, judges, Texas State Bar and MHMR must work together and create a standardized list of questions that all judges be required to ask a defendant in open court with a court reporter present whenever the issue of a defendant's competency is questioned.

**   This will create an indisputable record and tangible evidence as to a defendant's competency or incompetency to stand trial. In my case this could have saved taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars had such a provision been in place.

5)   The legislatures, County Commissioners, judges, Texas State Bar and MHMR must work together to create a short written competency test that all defendants be required to take as part of their competency evaluation. The actual test and results should become a permanent part of the doctor(s)' final report pursuant to article 46B.025.

**   This provides the court with indisputable written proof from the actual defendant as to: (1) the defendant's ability to consult with their attorney with a resonable degree of rational understanding; (2) the defendant's ability to understand the proceedings against him and the possible consequences; (3) the defendant's understanding of the roles of the courtroom personnel; (4) the defendant's ability to assist their attorney in formulating a defense; (5) the defendant's ability to refrain from irrational and unmanagable behavior in court; (6) the defendant's ability to tolerate the potential stress of the trial process.

The most serious potential drawback I see with this test is the issue of literacy. Since statistics show many people in jail/prison have not completed high school and cannot read, consideration would have to be given for this. Nevertheless the ultimate benefit of such tests will be to avoid wasting tax dollars with erroneous commitments to state hospitals, as happened in my case.

6)   There needs to be a standardized questionnaire given during intake processing at every state hospital when accepting a person committed under article 46B.

**   This is part of a system of checks and balances that makes an effort to ensure no defendants slip through the cracks at the court level, and if so, that they are immediately identified and returned to the committing court. Had such a provision been in place, when I arrived at the state hospital the administrators of Big Spring State Hospital could have spoken the truth long ago and saved taxpayers the cost of my stay at BSSH and the expenses associated with the pending federal civil rights lawsuit I have filed against Dallas County, Dr. Clayton and others involved in this nightmare.

7)   Unless presented with a perponderance of new, and credible evidence, the courts should not subject any defendant to multiple competency evaluations within 60 days of one another, after a forensic expert has provided the court with a report stating that they deem the defendant competent to stand trial.

**   For reason yet to be justified after being deemed competent by one doctor, I was immediately subjected to a second evaluation.

8)   When the findings/conclusions of forensic experts conflict as to a defendant's competency, a hearing before a judge or jury should be "mandatory" and the defendant's presence at this hearing should also be "mandatory".

**   Without my knowledge, permission or consent Thomas R. Grett, the assistant district attorney, and Judge Greene colluded and waived my rights to a Incompetency Trial in violation of article 46B.051. Had the law been followed in this respect, for the first time I could have appeared in court and spoken on record for myself and [possibly] avoided being unjustly commited to the state hospital, and the tax dollars wasted could have been put to better use by those responsible for this judicial nightmare.

9)   A defendant's right to a Incompetency Trial should not be waived unless a hearing is held and the defendant is physcially present in court during the hearing.

10)   An alternative before implementing the suggested requirements made in paragraph 8 above, is when the findings/conclusions of two forensic experts conflict regarding a defendant's competency, the court should order a third disinterested expert to evaluate the defendant, if doing so would be the most judicious, and cost effective method for determining whether a defendant is incompetent to stand trial.

What the Dallas County Judge and Commissioners Court could do on a local level to prevent repeats of what has happened to me:

1)   Immediately cancel the contracts of Dr(s). Lisa Kay Clayton and Michael R. Pittman to conduct competency evaluations of defendant.