Sussette Sheree Timmons v. State, 510 S.W.3d 713

Sussette Sheree Timmons pleaded guilty in 2005 to sexual assault of a child and received 10 years deferred adjudication with mental-health related probation conditions (including taking prescribed medication and participation in a specialized caseload).
After modifications and alleged probation violations, the State filed a petition to adjudicate guilt in Feb. 2013; defense moved for psychiatric examination and the trial court committed Timmons to a state hospital for competency restoration.
On April 9, 2013, the trial court ordered commitment to Terrell State Hospital (up to 120 days) for competency restoration; she was returned to Collin County before 120 days with a hospital report (not in record) indicating competency.
On August 28, 2013, Timmons pleaded true to several probation-violation allegations in an open plea; the court asked and defense counsel represented on the record that Timmons was competent based on the hospital report and the court’s observations.
The trial court found paragraphs 7–9 true, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced Timmons to six years’ confinement (with 584 days credit). Timmons announced an intent to appeal, arguing the court failed to conduct competency proceedings under Articles 46B.108 and 46B.111.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 46B.108 & 46B.111 before accepting plea	Timmons: court should have held a hearing to determine on-the-record whether competency restoration occurred before accepting waivers and plea	State: parties and court agreed competence was restored per Article 46B.112; Subchapter E (Arts. 46B.108/46B.111) applies only when defendant is returned incompetent and unlikely to be restored	Court: No error — Subchapter E inapplicable because defendant was returned competent; court’s reliance on hospital report, counsel’s representation, and on-the-record findings sufficed
Whether the record shows a lawful judicial determination of competency before resuming proceedings	Timmons: lack of explicit Article 46B.084 order and missing hospital report means no judicial restoration on record	State: competency was established by agreement/representation and court’s judicial notice and observations	Court: Held trial court did not abuse discretion; on-the-record representations, judicial notice of hospital report, court observations, and lucid responses by defendant supported finding of competency

Montoya v. State, 291 S.W.3d 420 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (competency determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
McDaniel v. State, 98 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (trial judge’s observations are entitled to deference in competency findings)
State v. Thomas, 428 S.W.3d 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard and appellate review principles)
Schaffer v. State, 583 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (judicial determination of restored competency required after hospital return)
Bradford v. State, 172 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (trial court must make on-record competency determination before resuming proceedings)
Byrd v. State, 719 S.W.2d 237 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986) (absence of on-record competency determination requires abatement)