Anthony v. State, 531 S.W.3d 739

Defendant Joseph Edward Anthony pled true to violating terms of three years' deferred-adjudication community supervision after testing positive for methamphetamine; trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced him to 24 months in state jail.
At plea/adjudication hearing Anthony initially was uncertain about arrest date but acknowledged receipt of the State’s motion, had spoken with counsel, and confirmed he wished to plead true.
At sentencing Anthony testified coherently about remorse, church attendance, wanting treatment, and his support network; cross-examination showed coherent discussion of criminal history and supervision compliance.
Anthony briefly refused to provide a thumbprint on the judgment, stated confusion about counsel’s performance, then complied after the court’s admonition and indicated intent to appeal.
Anthony argued on appeal the court should have sua sponte conducted an informal competency inquiry before adjudication and sentencing.
The trial court assessed $500 in court-appointed attorney fees; the appellate court found no finding of ability to pay and modified the judgment to delete those fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a sua sponte informal competency inquiry before adjudication/sentencing	Anthony: several behaviors (confusion about arrest date, allegedly rambling testimony, thumbprint refusal, saying he didn’t understand) suggested incompetence requiring inquiry	State: record showed Anthony understood proceedings, consulted counsel, made voluntary decisions, and testified coherently — no suggestion of incompetence triggered inquiry	No error; no informal inquiry required because record lacked more-than-scintilla evidence of incompetence
Whether trial court could assess court-appointed attorney fees without finding ability to pay	Anthony: fees improperly assessed because record shows he was indigent and court made no ability-to-pay finding	State: (implicit) court assessed fees but made no explicit finding of ability to pay	Trial court’s assessment of attorney fees reversed; judgment modified to delete fees because statutory finding on ability to pay was absent

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (due process forbids convicting incompetent defendant)
Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996) (pretrial competency standards and burden principles)
Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (informal-inquiry trigger and standard for competency suggestions)
Durgan v. State, 240 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (competency assertion as preliminary due-process issue)
Ex parte LaHood, 401 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (quantum of evidence needed to show incompetency)
Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial court must determine defendant’s financial resources before ordering reimbursement of appointed counsel fees)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (defendant’s financial resources are critical to fee assessment)
Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (fee assessment without finding of ability to pay is erroneous)