in Re the State of Texas Ex Rel. John F. Healey, Jr., District Attorney, 268th Judicial District v. Honorable Brady G. Elliott, Judge 268th District Court, Real Party in Interest Albert James Turner, WR-82,875-01

Background

Albert James Turner (real party) is subject of a remand from Turner v. State directing the trial court to determine whether a retrospective competency trial is presently feasible, considering elapsed time, available evidence, and “any other pertinent considerations.”
The State (relator) filed for leave to seek mandamus/prohibition to limit the trial court’s inquiries and to prevent empaneling a jury for purposes other than retrospective competency.
Respondent (trial judge) reviewed filings and evidence and identified present competency as one “pertinent consideration,” seeking to resolve that issue with a jury.
Turner’s counsel opposes the State’s motion for leave, arguing the trial court’s feasibility determination is discretionary (not ministerial) and that the State has an adequate remedy by appeal post-record transmission under Art. 44.01(c).
Turner’s response also objects to the State’s disparaging characterizations of trial counsel as irrelevant and improper; it urges denial of leave and lifting the stay on the current competency proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s feasibility determination is ministerial	Mandamus: court must be compelled to determine feasibility without considering present competency or empaneling a jury	Turner: feasibility is fact-specific and discretionary; judge may identify pertinent considerations (including current competency)	Court should deny mandamus because the act is not purely ministerial and requires discretion
Whether the State lacks an adequate remedy at law	State: appeal process is inadequate, burdensome, or too slow for relief	Turner: Article 44.01(c) provides adequate remedy by appeal when record forwarded post-remand; inconvenience does not make appeal inadequate	Appeal under Art. 44.01(c) is an adequate remedy; mandamus is not appropriate
Whether a jury may be empaneled to resolve present competency as part of feasibility	State: opposes using a jury for present competency when evaluating feasibility of retrospective trial	Turner: trial judge may determine present competency is a pertinent factor and may seek a jury’s input; no prohibition in remand order	Trial court’s decision to involve a jury is within discretion; not grounds for mandamus
Whether the State’s pleadings improperly attack defense counsel	State: implies counsel engaged in strategy/fraud to secure incompetency findings	Turner: such accusations are irrelevant, improper, and analogous to prejudicial prosecutorial remarks; they should not influence relief	The State’s character attacks are improper and irrelevant to mandamus analysis

Key Cases Cited

In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus standard and extraordinary-writ principles)
State ex rel. Healey v. McMeans, 884 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (mandamus available only when act is ministerial and no adequate remedy at law)
Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (direct appeal opinion remanding for feasibility determination of retrospective competency trial)
Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (discussing problems and standards for retrospective competency determinations)
Caballero v. State, 587 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (feasibility of retrospective competency determined case-by-case)
Texas Dept. of Corrections v. Dalehite, 623 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (definition of ministerial duty)
Pfeiffer v. State, 363 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (appellate court can consider issues not raised by parties)