Turner, Albert James, WR-80,559-02

Relator Albert James Turner is a death-row inmate who was denied a competency trial during his capital murder trial; this Court previously remanded for consideration of a retrospective competency trial.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals instructed the trial court to determine whether a retrospective competency trial is presently feasible before conducting one.
At a May 30, 2014 hearing the trial judge ordered current competency evaluations; Turner refused to meet with several appointed experts.
On September 25, 2014 the trial court entered a one-page order finding a retrospective competency trial "feasible" without a hearing that reviewed "the evidence available" or allowed presentation of witnesses or other pertinent considerations.
Defense requested a renewed, full feasibility hearing on January 16, 2015; the trial judge refused, treating the May 30 procedural scheduling and evaluation order as the required feasibility determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court must hold a fact-specific feasibility hearing before ordering a retrospective competency trial	Turner: Due process and this Court's remand require a case-specific feasibility determination that considers all "pertinent considerations" and permits evidence and witnesses	Respondent (trial court/State): Feasibility was already decided at the May 30 scheduling/evaluation hearing and by Turner's refusal to cooperate with experts	Trial court abused discretion by failing to provide the full, fact-specific feasibility determination required by due process and the Court's remand (relief sought via mandamus/prohibition)
Whether proceedings may go forward absent a proper feasibility determination	Turner: Proceeding without the mandated feasibility finding violates due process and this Court's prior instructions; mandamus/prohibition is the only adequate remedy	Respondent: The earlier procedural hearing and refusal to cooperate suffice to justify moving forward	Court must stay the retrospective competency trial and order a proper feasibility hearing before trial proceeds

Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (remand instructing trial court to determine feasibility of retrospective competency trial)
Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (discussing inherent difficulties in retrospective competency proceedings)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975) (due process requires consideration of competency before trial proceedings)
Caballero v. State, 587 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (feasibility of retrospective competency trial is case-specific)
In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (mandamus/prohibition jurisdiction in criminal matters)
In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discussing ministerial acts and mandamus standards)
Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining when an available remedy at law may be inadequate)
In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus standards in criminal cases)