Marc Allen Mason v. State, 07-14-00345-CR

Appellant arrested Nov 20, 2012 and indicted Mar 20, 2013 for burglary; tried to jury Sept 15, 2014 and sentenced to 17 years and $5,000 fine. Appellant appealed.
Appellant spent ~21 months incarcerated pretrial, much of that in a darkened administrative segregation cell with severely limited out-of-cell time and access to counsel or law library.
The trial court twice ordered psychiatric/competency exams (one sua sponte); failures by the sheriff, the defendant, and an examiner prevented completion and no competency determination was ever made.
Appellant filed pro se motions after being returned to light, including claims of counsel neglect, a belief he had an implanted listening device, and Sixth Amendment violations; appointed counsel later moved for competency evaluation and for speedy-trial dismissal.
Trial counsel renewed competency motions; the trial court denied the final psychiatric motion and denied Appellant’s speedy-trial dismissal immediately before trial. Appellant contends the delay was negligent, prejudicial (lost witnesses, impaired mental-health defense), and that the court failed to perform the mandatory informal competency inquiry and stay proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy-trial violation	Appellant: ~21 months pretrial incarceration (incl. ~18 months post-indictment), no continuances requested, delay largely due to State/sheriff negligence and counsel inattention; prejudice from lost witnesses and impaired defense.	State: Delay attributable to pending psychiatric examinations requested by defense; no objection to trying without exams.	Trial court denied Appellant's motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial; appellant seeks reversal.
Competency inquiry and stay	Appellant: Multiple sources (pro se filings, testimony about delusions, counsel motions, court-ordered exams) gave at least "some evidence" of incompetency; court was required to conduct an informal inquiry and stay proceedings until resolved.	State: Proceeded without requiring completed psychiatric report; argued evaluations caused delay but did not oppose trial.	Trial court denied re-urged psychiatric motion and proceeded to trial without conducting an informal competency inquiry; appellant seeks remand for required inquiry and stay.

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (Barker factors for speedy-trial claims)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (presumptively prejudicial delay threshold)
Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (due-process bar to trying an incompetent defendant)
Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. Crim. App.) (weight of assertion and prejudice in speedy-trial analysis)
Ex parte LaHood, 401 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App.) (scope of informal competency inquiry under Tex. Code Crim. Proc.)
State v. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d 818 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presumptive prejudice and Barker analysis)