IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-16-00370-CR
REGINALD ANTWON SCOTT,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015-913-C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Reginald Antwon Scott entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to the
offenses of stalking and criminal mischief. The trial court found that Appellant was not
guilty by reason of insanity and ordered Appellant committed to the Texas Department
of State Health Services State Hospital Forensic Clearinghouse or to any other facility
determined appropriate by the local mental health authority for a period not to exceed
thirty days. Appellant appeals the order of commitment. We affirm.
In the sole issue on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding
that he placed another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure Article 46C.157 provides:
If a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, the court
immediately shall determine whether the offense of which the person was
acquitted involved conduct that:
(1) caused serious bodily injury to another person;
(2) placed another person in imminent danger of serious bodily
injury; or
(3) consisted of a threat of serious bodily injury to another person
through the use of a deadly weapon.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46C.157 (West 2006). The trial court found that
Appellant’s conduct placed another person in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
We have found no cases addressing the standard of review for a trial court’s
finding under Article 46C.157. We will follow the standard of review established for
other trial court rulings. When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a mixed question of law
and fact the court of appeals may review de novo the trial court's application of the law
to the facts of the case. See Estrada v. State, 154 S.W.3d 604, 607 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We
review de novo the trial court's legal conclusions unless its explicit fact-findings that are
supported by the record are also dispositive of the legal ruling. See State v. Kelly, 204
S.W.3d 808, 818 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).
Grace Sigler is 89 years-old and lives alone. In May or June of 2014, Appellant
began coming onto Sigler’s property and also loitering in the alley behind her house.
Sigler also saw Appellant looking into her front door window. In July 2014, Sigler was
Scott v. State Page 2
informed by a neighbor that Appellant had been standing on her front porch looking
through her door. Appellant was given a warning to stay off of Sigler’s property. In July
2014, Appellant was arrested for an incident where he was trespassing on Sigler’s
neighbor’s property. Appellant was incarcerated for those charges until January 2015.
In January 2015 soon after his release, Appellant again started coming onto Sigler’s
property. On January 9, 2015, a neighbor saw Appellant standing in Sigler’s front yard.
That night, Sigler turned on her front porch light, and after a few minutes the light went
out. The next morning Sigler saw that the light bulb had been removed from the light
fixture.
On February 9, 2015, Sigler’s power went off at her residence. When her son-in-
law came to check on the problem, he found that all of the switches in the breaker box
were turned off. Her son-in-law turned the breakers back on and installed a lock on the
breaker box. A neighbor saw Appellant jump the fence and go into Sigler’s backyard on
that day prior to Sigler’s loss of power in her home.
On February 11, 2015, Sigler’s power went off again. Sigler’s daughter and son-
in-law went to the residence and discovered that the entire electric meter had been
removed. Sigler’s fence was also damaged. A neighbor saw Appellant pulling on Sigler’s
fence a few hours before the power went off. Later, Sigler’s electric meter was found in
a neighbor’s garage, and the meter had been set on fire. Appellant’s mother identified
Scott v. State Page 3
the bottle of lighter fluid used to start the fire as coming from her house. Appellant was
given another warning to stay off of Sigler’s property.
On the night of February 12, 2015, Sigler heard someone banging on the back of
her house. A neighbor saw Appellant in Sigler’s backyard, and he was attempting to
remove the lock on the electric meter by hitting it with a brick. The neighbor called the
police. Appellant was later apprehended.
Appellant was charged with stalking and criminal mischief for the incidents
involving Sigler. After finding Appellant not guilty by reason of insanity, the trial court
was required to “immediately” determine whether the offense for which Appellant was
acquitted involved conduct that: (1) caused serious bodily injury to another person; (2)
placed another person in imminent danger of serious bodily injury; or (3) consisted of a
threat of serious bodily injury to another person through the use of a deadly weapon.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46C.157 (West 2006). The trial court found that the
offenses involved conduct that placed another person in imminent danger of serious
bodily injury.
"Serious bodily injury" is defined as "bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of
death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or
impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ." TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §
1.07(a)(46) (West Supp. 2016). Article 46C.157 allows for an evaluation of Appellant’s
conduct surrounding the offenses. The evidence shows Appellant’s escalating actions
Scott v. State Page 4
toward Sigler. He began by trespassing on her property, and his conduct escalated to
setting her property on fire. Appellant used a brick to remove a lock from Sigler’s
property. The trial court did not err in finding that the offenses involved conduct that
placed another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. We overrule the sole issue
on appeal.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
(Chief Justice Gray concurring with a note)*
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed July 26, 2017
Do not publish
[CR25]
*(Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment of the court to the extent that it affirms the
trial court’s judgment of commitment. A separate opinion will not issue.)
Scott v. State Page 5