Olatunde Antonio Adepegba v. State, 05-15-01139-CR

Appellant Olatunde Adepegba was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after an altercation in a restaurant on January 25, 2015; a jury convicted him and assessed five years’ imprisonment.
The trial court had previously found Adepegba incompetent and entered an order of commitment; later the court rescinded that commitment after learning he might have regained competency.
Dr. Kristi Compton evaluated Adepegba on June 24, 2015, and reported he was competent to stand trial if maintained on psychotropic medication; she recommended continued medication to sustain competency.
Defense counsel represented they could effectively communicate with Adepegba and that he could assist in his defense; the trial court held a pre-voir dire hearing and found Adepegba competent based on the report and counsel’s representations.
Adepegba did not challenge sufficiency of the evidence; on appeal he raised two issues: (1) the five-year prison sentence allegedly violates the penal code’s objectives (punitive vs. rehabilitative), and (2) the court failed to follow article 46B.084’s timing requirements when determining regained competency.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting both arguments: the sentence was within the statutory range and Adepegba’s competency was properly determined under article 46B.0755 (reexamination procedure), not 46B.084 (facility-notification procedure).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether the five-year prison sentence violates the penal code objectives (excessive/punitive vs. rehabilitative)	Adepegba: sentence is merely punitive, does not address rehabilitation or mental-health needs	State: sentence is within statutory range for second-degree felony; punishment discretion supported by evidence	Court: Issue not preserved (no timely objection); sentence within statutory range and not an abuse of discretion — affirm
2. Whether trial court failed to comply with art. 46B.084 timing for determining regained competency	Adepegba: court waited 47 days after notice of competency; failed to determine competency within 20 days as required by art. 46B.084	State: art. 46B.084 procedure applies when a facility notifies the court; here defendant was never at a facility after incompetency, so art. 46B.0755 reexamination procedure controlled and was followed	Court: art. 46B.084 was inapplicable; court complied with art. 46B.0755 by ordering reexamination, admitting Dr. Compton’s report, and finding defendant competent — affirm

Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (due-process competency standards and requirements)
Schaffer v. State, 583 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (presumption of competency and requirement of judicial determination before resuming proceedings)
Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App.) (sentence within statutory range will not be disturbed on appeal)
Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997) (punishment within statutory range not excessive as a matter of law)
Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (preservation of complaint about sentencing)
Fuller v. State, 11 S.W.3d 393 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000) (need for record evidence showing judicial determination of regained competency)