Turner, Albert James
WR-80,559-02
| Tex. App. | Jan 23, 2015Background
- Capital case remanded by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for a determination whether a retrospective (historical) competency trial is presently feasible; mandate issued April 2014 (Turner v. State).
- Trial court held a May 30, 2014 hearing on feasibility and invited briefing on whether Turner must be currently competent to undergo a retrospective competency trial.
- Turner relied on Greene v. State to argue a defendant must be presently competent before a retrospective competency trial; the court appointed two experts (one for each side) to evaluate Turner’s current competency.
- Turner refused to submit to evaluations by the court-appointed experts.
- The trial court found a retrospective competency trial feasible, denied Turner’s renewed motion to determine contemporary competency, and set/reset the retrospective hearing; the State filed this response opposing Turner’s mandamus/prohibition petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Turner) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held (trial court) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Turner is entitled to a jury trial on his current (contemporary) competency before a retrospective competency trial | Turner: a defendant must be currently competent and is entitled to a jury determination of current competency before a retrospective competency trial (relying on Greene) | State: no controlling authority requires a contemporary-competency finding before a retrospective competency trial; adequate remedy exists on appeal; presumption of competency controls; Turner refused evaluations | Trial court denied Turner’s motion and did not hold a separate contemporary-competency jury proceeding |
| Whether contemporary competency must be found before conducting a retrospective competency trial | Turner: contemporary competency is prerequisite to any retrospective competency proceeding | State: other jurisdictions allow retrospective competency proceedings without a prior contemporaneous competency finding; appointment of experts was done to create a fuller record but does not lower the statutory standard for holding a competency trial | Trial court determined retrospective competency trial was feasible and proceeded without first finding current competency |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (remanded for determination of feasibility and, if feasible, conduct of a retrospective competency trial)
- Barber v. State, 757 S.W.2d 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (post-trial appeal may provide adequate remedy regarding competency determinations)
- Greene v. State, 264 S.W.3d 271 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (court of appeals held contemporary competency required for retrospective competency trial)
- Ryder v. State, 83 P.3d 856 (Okla. Crim. App.) (authority holding retrospective competency trial may proceed without prior contemporaneous competency finding)
- State v. McRae, 594 S.E.2d 71 (N.C. Ct. App.) (similar holding allowing retrospective competency proceedings)
- Moore v. Superior Court, 237 P.3d 530 (Cal. 2010) (discussing limits of due-process competency rights in civil/custodial contexts and implications for competency-related proceedings)