Parks, Christopher Wesley, PD-1213-15

Christopher Wesley Parks was indicted for continuous sexual abuse of a child (Tex. Penal Code §21.02(b)) covering acts from Sept. 13, 2011 to June 30, 2012; a jury convicted him and assessed life imprisonment.
Counsel moved for a competency evaluation; the trial court found Parks incompetent in 2013 and committed him to Vernon State Hospital for restoration; in March 2014 DSHS reported Parks was competent to stand trial.
Trial proceeded in June 2014; Parks did not object to competency at trial and both sides announced ready.
During trial the complainant disclosed an additional alleged act (oral sex) the State had not specifically listed in pretrial notices; the trial court allowed admission after a short recess and denied a continuance.
Parks challenged (1) that he was tried while incompetent (due process), (2) admission of the late-noticed extraneous oral-sex allegation, and (3) the jury unanimity charge. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Parks)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Competency to stand trial	Parks: He had been found incompetent earlier and suffered strokes; he was forced to stand trial while still incompetent, violating due process	State: DSHS evaluated Parks and found him competent before trial; record lacks evidence of current incompetence or inability to assist counsel	Court: Affirmed — competency restoration occurred and record showed Parks was competent at trial; no due-process violation
Admission of extraneous offense (oral sex)	Parks: The oral-sex act was not disclosed in required pretrial notice, causing unfair surprise and prejudice	State: The new disclosure came as soon as learned, the witness was present and cross-examinable, and the evidence "shored up" the indicted offenses; trial court limited jury use	Court: Affirmed — admission did not constitute harmful surprise given circumstances and court’s limiting instructions
Jury unanimity	Parks: Jury charge could allow conviction based on extraneous act (oral sex) without unanimous agreement on indictment offenses, causing egregious harm	State: Charge tracked §21.02(d) and limited jury to finding acts beyond a reasonable doubt; unanimity requirement satisfied per statute and instructions	Court: Affirmed — charge was not erroneous and did not produce egregious harm

Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (U.S. 1996) (due-process standard governing competency to stand trial)
Ex parte Long, 558 S.W.2d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (prior incompetency finding does not preclude later trial once restoration is shown)
Moralez v. State, 450 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. App. 2014) (once DSHS finds competency, burden on defendant to prove current incompetence)
De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (jury unanimity principles and egregious-harm standard for unpreserved charge error)
Crenshaw v. State, 378 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (presumption jury follows limiting instructions)