Rodriguez v. State, 329 S.W.3d 74

Appellant Salvador Torres Rodriguez was convicted of murder and received 50 years' imprisonment.
On the night of the murder, he was beaten by a group of men at his workplace trailer park, then drove his truck into the crowd, killing one person.
The defense argued self-defense, but the jury convicted; at sentencing, the defense noted appellant’s epilepsy through his daughter.
Appellate counsel later moved to appoint an expert to evaluate competency and filed a motion for new trial alleging incompetence and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The trial court held a hearing on the motion to appoint an expert and a hearing on the motion for new trial; witnesses were trial counsel and appellant’s daughter; no transcript for the earlier hearing appears in the record.
The appellate court affirmed, addressing competency inquiries, post-sentencing requests, and ineffective assistance challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sua sponte competency inquiry	Rodriguez contends lack of sua sponte inquiry showed doubt in competency.	State argues no error as evidence did not raise bona fide doubt pre-sentencing.	No error; no bona fide doubt existed pre-sentencing.
Motion for new trial based on incompetency	Rodriguez argues incompetency at trial warranted new trial.	State contends memory issues and counsel beliefs didn't show incompetence.	Court did not abuse discretion; evidence did not prove incompetence at trial.
Post-sentencing competency examination	Rodriguez seeks post-sentencing competency examination under art. 46B.021.	State asserts no authority to order exam post-sentencing and record insufficient.	Error not shown; issue insufficiently developed; waived.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Rodriguez claims counsel failed in communication, mental-health investigation, witness handling, and objections.	State argues counsel had strategic reasons and record supports effective representation.	No reversible error; record supports not deficient performance.

Fuller v. State, 253 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (defines bona fide doubt standard for competency)
Criswell v. State, 278 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (informal competency inquiry requirements)
Kostura v. State, 292 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (when reviewing competency issues post-trial)
Alcott v. State, 51 S.W.3d 596 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (scope of evidence for competency concerns)
Purchase v. State, 84 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (post-trial competency considerations for new trial motions)
Brown v. State, 960 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997) (consideration of pre-sentencing evidence in competency inquiries)
Taylor v. State, 948 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (limits of post-sentencing competency analysis)
Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (deference when impairment does not impede proceedings)
McDaniel v. State, 98 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (trial court implicit competency determinations)
Stafford v. State, 101 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (competency considerations linked to trial strategy)