Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
29 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Barber v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Barber v. State, 737 S.W.2d 824, 828 (Tex. Crim. 2015See, e.g., Barber v. State, 737 S.W2d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987); Caballero v. State, 587 S.W2d 741 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). | 6 | 6 |
Turner, Albert Jamesgreen2 sentences2023See Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676, 696 (Tex. Crim. 2022See Turner, 422 S.W.3d at 696 (citing 43 GEORGE E. | 5 | 5 |
Greene v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Greene, 264 S.W.3d at 272 (“[a] retrospective competency inquiry would be meaningless if [the defendant] does not possess at least some level of competency at the time the inquiry is conducted.”). 4 If a defendant must be presently competent to conduct a retrospective competency hearing, does the trial court have the authority to require a jury to determine the issue of present competency? 2015Mr. Morrow argued that under Greene v. State, 264 S.W.3d 271 (Tex. App.-San Antonio, 2008, pet. refd), Turner's contemporary competency was relevant to the determination of whether a retrospective competency hearing is feasible. | 4 | 5 |
Huff v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “if the pre-trial competency hearing was not held and should have been, or was improper for some reason and merited a new hearing, the appeal would be abated and a retrospective competency hearing could be held.” Huff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 325, 326 (Tex. Crim. 2015Huff v. State, 807 S. W.2d 325 (Tex.Crim.App.l991 ); Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Crim.App.l983)(vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1013 ; 110 S.Ct. 1313 ; 108 L.Ed.2d489; 1990)); Brandon v. State, 599 S. W.2d 567 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)(vacated on other grounds, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981)); Garcia v. State, 595 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Callawayv. | 2 | 5 |
Ex Parte Winfreygreen2 sentences2009Ex parte Winfrey , 581 S.W.2d 698, 699 (Tex. Crim. 1994See Ex parte Winfrey, 581 S.W.2d 698, 699 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). | 2 | 3 |
Caballero v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Barber v. State, 737 S.W2d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987); Caballero v. State, 587 S.W2d 741 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). 2013See, e.g., Barber v. State, 737 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Caballero v. State, 587 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). | 1 | 4 |
Hawkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65, 84-85 (Tex. Crim. 2015Huff v. State, 807 S. W.2d 325 (Tex.Crim.App.l991 ); Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Crim.App.l983)(vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1013 ; 110 S.Ct. 1313 ; 108 L.Ed.2d489; 1990)); Brandon v. State, 599 S. W.2d 567 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)(vacated on other grounds, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981)); Garcia v. State, 595 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Callawayv. | 1 | 3 |
Boyett v. Stategreen1 sentence2025“As a matter of constitutional due process, a criminal defendant who is incompetent may not stand trial.” Boyett v. State, 545 S.W.3d 556, 563 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Faretta v. Californiagreen1 sentence2023As the State aptly points out, a retrospective competency hearing is integral to the trial itself. 11 representation.’” Id. (quoting Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975)). | 1 | 1 |
Geeslin v. Stategreen1 sentence2023“The prosecution has a heavy burden to demonstrate that a waiver of constitutional rights was made intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily, particularly when that right was the right to counsel.” Geeslin v. State, 600 S.W.2d 309, 313 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Pate v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2021The court found support for this conclusion in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 384 (1966), in which the Supreme Court observed that “[i]t is contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent, and yet knowingly or intelligently ‘waive’ his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial.” Although we recognize that the hearing at issue here was a retrospective competency hearing designed to determine whether Osorio-Lopez was competent to stand trial in October 2018, we, nevertheless, find the logic of these cases compelling and conclude that Osorio-Lopez was not entitled | 1 | 1 |
Rogers v. Lansdowngreen2 sentences2015The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals noted that “[a] competency hearing is a special proceeding for the purpose of ensuring full compliance with due process requirements, but itself is not a criminal prosecution.” Ryder, 83 P.3d at 870 (quoting Rogers v. Lansdown, 829 P.2d 687, 688 (Okla. 2015The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals noted its prior holding that "[a] competency hearing is a special proceeding for the purpose of ensuring full compliance with due process requirements, but itself is not a criminal prosecution." Ryder, 83 P.3d at 870 (quoting Rogers v. Lansdown, 829 P.2d 687,688 (Okla. | 1 | 1 |
Ryder v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The State has found two cases directly addressing the defendant’s right to be competent at a retrospective competency hearing, Ryder v. State, 83 P.3d 856, 870-71 (Okla. 2015Ryder argued that the retrospective competency hearing was a “criminal proceeding,” and as such, the hearing should have been “suspended pending his contemporary competency.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2015Assuming deficient performance and resulting harm are shown under Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 [ 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 ] (1984), whether the proper remedy is to order a retrospective competency inquiry or to grant a new trial. 2015Assuming deficient performance and resulting harm are shown under Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 [ 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 ] (1984), whether the proper remedy is to order a retrospective competency inquiry or to grant a new trial. | 4 | 2012–2015 |
Ex Parte Watson
green
2 sentences2015In Ex parte Watson, this Court remanded the case to the trial court “to determine the feasibility of the retrospective competency hearing.” Id., 606 S.W.2d at 906 . 2015In Ex parte Watson, this Court remanded the case to the trial court “to determine the feasibility of the retrospective competency hearing.” Id., 606 S.W.2d at 906 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Brandon v. State
green
2 sentences2015Huff v. State, 807 S. W.2d 325 (Tex.Crim.App.l991 ); Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Crim.App.l983)(vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1013 ; 110 S.Ct. 1313 ; 108 L.Ed.2d489; 1990)); Brandon v. State, 599 S. W.2d 567 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)(vacated on other grounds, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981)); Garcia v. State, 595 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Callawayv. 1991Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Caballero v. State, 587 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ex parte Winfrey, 581 S.W.2d 698 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). | 2 | 1991–2015 |
Wilbur P. Bolius v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation, State of Florida
green
2 sentences2008Bolius, 597 F.2d at 989 . 2008Bolius , 597 F.2d at 989 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Goffney v. State
green
1 sentence2023Manley, 23 S.W.3d at 175 (citing Goffney, 843 S.W.2d at 584 ). 14 Id. at 174. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Manley v. State
green
1 sentence2023Manley, 23 S.W.3d at 175 (citing Goffney, 843 S.W.2d at 584 ). 14 Id. at 174. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Kirby v. Illinois
green
1 sentence2023As the State aptly points out, a retrospective competency hearing is integral to the trial itself. 11 representation.’” Id. (quoting Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lahood, Ex Parte Michael George
green
1 sentence2018Because the Court does not, I respectfully dissent. 1 401 S.W.3d 45 , 54 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Garcia v. State
green
1 sentence2015Huff v. State, 807 S. W.2d 325 (Tex.Crim.App.l991 ); Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Crim.App.l983)(vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1013 ; 110 S.Ct. 1313 ; 108 L.Ed.2d489; 1990)); Brandon v. State, 599 S. W.2d 567 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)(vacated on other grounds, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981)); Garcia v. State, 595 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Callawayv. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Stewart v. Luhning Et Ux.
neutral
1 sentence2015While retrospective compet ency inquiries may be *273 conducted consistent Tex.App.-San Antonio,2008. with the requirements of due process in most cases, Greene v. State see Barber v. State, 131 S.W.2d 824 , 828 264S.W.3d271 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) (recognizing a retrospective END OF DOCUMENT determination of the competency of an accused "can be made within the limits of due process de pending upon the quality and quantity of the evid ence available"), we are of the opinion that the present case poses an exception. [3] There are many difficulties inherent in making a retrospective determination o | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Lightsey
green
1 sentence2015People v. Lightsey, 2012 WL 2685249 (Cal. 2012). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens
green
1 sentence2015Huff v. State, 807 S. W.2d 325 (Tex.Crim.App.l991 ); Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Crim.App.l983)(vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1013 ; 110 S.Ct. 1313 ; 108 L.Ed.2d489; 1990)); Brandon v. State, 599 S. W.2d 567 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)(vacated on other grounds, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981)); Garcia v. State, 595 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Callawayv. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
James v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
green
1 sentence2015Huff v. State, 807 S. W.2d 325 (Tex.Crim.App.l991 ); Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Crim.App.l983)(vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1013 ; 110 S.Ct. 1313 ; 108 L.Ed.2d489; 1990)); Brandon v. State, 599 S. W.2d 567 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)(vacated on other grounds, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981)); Garcia v. State, 595 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Callawayv. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hawkins v. Collins
green
1 sentence2015Huff v. State, 807 S. W.2d 325 (Tex.Crim.App.l991 ); Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Crim.App.l983)(vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1013 ; 110 S.Ct. 1313 ; 108 L.Ed.2d489; 1990)); Brandon v. State, 599 S. W.2d 567 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)(vacated on other grounds, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981)); Garcia v. State, 595 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Callawayv. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bridge v. Collins
green
1 sentence2015Huff v. State, 807 S. W.2d 325 (Tex.Crim.App.l991 ); Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Crim.App.l983)(vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1013 ; 110 S.Ct. 1313 ; 108 L.Ed.2d489; 1990)); Brandon v. State, 599 S. W.2d 567 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)(vacated on other grounds, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981)); Garcia v. State, 595 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Callawayv. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence1991Cf. Williams v. State, 790 S.W.2d 336 (Tex.Cr.App.1990); Robinson v. State, 790 S.W.2d 334 (Tex.Cr.App.1990); Ex parte Lopez, 763 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Robinson v. State
green
1 sentence1991Cf. Williams v. State, 790 S.W.2d 336 (Tex.Cr.App.1990); Robinson v. State, 790 S.W.2d 334 (Tex.Cr.App.1990); Ex parte Lopez, 763 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Ex Parte Lopez green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.