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.
17 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Beyers v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2009Austin 2002, pet. denied) (“An irrevocable affidavit relinquishing a parent’s rights and a petition for termination can support a finding that termination is in the best interest of the child and a judgment of termination.”); Beyers v. Roberts, 199 S.W.3d 354, 360 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (noting in custody case that neither the statutes nor the common law require that a court must conduct a hearing to determine whether a mediated settlement agreement is in child’s best interest). 2009Id.; see also Lumbis v. Tex. Dep't of Protective *453 & Regulatory Servs., 65 S.W.3d 844, 850 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. denied) ("An irrevocable affidavit relinquishing a parent's rights and a petition for termination can support a finding that termination is in the best interest of the child and a judgment of termination."); Beyers v. Roberts, 199 S.W.3d 354, 360 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (noting in custody case that neither the statutes nor the common law require that a court must conduct a hearing to determine whether a mediated settlement agreement is in child's be | 2 | 2 |
Considine v. Considinegreen2 sentences2004Considine v. Considine, 726 S.W.2d 253, 254 (Tex.App.-Austin 1987, no writ). 2004Considine v. Considine, 726 S.W.2d 253, 254 (Tex.App.-Austin 1987, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Camposgreen1 sentence2015Ex Parte Campos, 613 S.W. 2d 745,746 (Tex.Crim.App.(l98l); STA"rl<'....MENT OF THE CASE Tuesday,July l9,1988,Moring Session:B:30 A.M. | 1 | 1 |
Lumbis v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Servicesgreen1 sentence2009Id.; see also Lumbis v. Tex. Dep't of Protective *453 & Regulatory Servs., 65 S.W.3d 844, 850 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. denied) ("An irrevocable affidavit relinquishing a parent's rights and a petition for termination can support a finding that termination is in the best interest of the child and a judgment of termination."); Beyers v. Roberts, 199 S.W.3d 354, 360 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (noting in custody case that neither the statutes nor the common law require that a court must conduct a hearing to determine whether a mediated settlement agreement is in child's be | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Bell v. State, 724 S.W.2d 780, 788 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Wofford v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Had the district court allowed James’s counsel to examine Kara, the hearing still would have been “in camera." That is, the in camera hearing would have "exclude[d] ... the presence of any unnecessary spectators.” Wofford v. State, 903 S.W.2d 796, 798 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, pet. refd); see also Fed.R.Evid. 412(c)(2) ("the court must conduct a hearing in camera and afford the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard”). | 1 | 1 |
Alvarado v. Stategreen1 sentence2004Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W.2d 199, 211 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Pipken v. Stategreen1 sentence1993According to the teachings of Pipken v. State, 671 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tex.App—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no pet.), “the time between the deferment of adjudication of guilt and subsequent disposition of the cause by adjudication or dismissal is ‘during trial’ for the purposes of the requirements imposed by article 46.02, sec. 2(b).” The State does not dispute that in the case at bar, the question as to appellant’s competency came to light “during trial.” Accordingly, we move on to an analysis of whether the trial court erred in failing to conduct a competency hearing as alleged by appellant. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morales v. State
green
2 sentences1983Thus, a trial court is required to sua sponte hold a competency hearing when evidence coming to the court’s attention raises a bona fide or reasonable doubt as to appellant’s competency. 1 Mata v. State, 632 S.W.2d 355 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Morales v. State, 587 S.W.2d 418 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ferguson v. State, 579 S.W.2d 2 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Thomas, supra. Evidence raising a bona fide doubt is that evidence that produces a real doubt in the judge’s mind as to the defendant’s present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or as to his present ability 1981With regard to raising the issue of incompetency, that Article provides: “(a) The issue of the defendant’s incompetency to stand trial shall be determined in advance of the trial on the merits if the court determines there is evidence to *927 support a finding of incompetency to stand trial on its own motion or on written motion by the defendant or his counsel filed prior to the date set for trial on the merits asserting that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. “(b) If during the trial evidence of the defendant’s incompetency is brought to the attention of the court from any source, t | 2 | 1981–1983 |
Webber v. State
green
1 sentence2003If during trial A evidence of the defendant = s incompetency is brought to the attention of the court, ... the court must conduct a hearing ... to determine whether or not there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial. @ Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Jackson v. Denno
green
2 sentences1987NOTES [1] Article 46.02, § 2(a) and (b), V.A.C.C.P., provides: "Sec. 2. (a) The issue of the defendant's incompetency to stand trial shall be determined in advance of the trial on the merits if the court determines there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial on its own motion or on written motion by the defendant or his counsel filed prior to the date set for trial on the merits asserting that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. "(b) If during the trial evidence of the defendant's incompetency is brought to the attention of the court from any source, the cour 1987NOTES [1] Article 46.02, § 2(a) and (b), V.A.C.C.P., provides: "Sec. 2. (a) The issue of the defendant's incompetency to stand trial shall be determined in advance of the trial on the merits if the court determines there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial on its own motion or on written motion by the defendant or his counsel filed prior to the date set for trial on the merits asserting that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. "(b) If during the trial evidence of the defendant's incompetency is brought to the attention of the court from any source, the cour | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence1987That hearing is in the appellate record before this Court. [4] In Johnson v. State, 564 S.W.2d at 710 , it was written: "An interpretation of Article 46.02(2)(b) to mean that any evidence will be sufficient to require a halting of proceedings and a separate determination on competency would produce unreasonable results not anticipated by the Legislature. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Sisco v. State
green
1 sentence1985Sisco v. State, 599 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Cr.App.1980); Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 46.02, § 2(b) (Vernon 1979). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Ferguson v. State
green
1 sentence1983Thus, a trial court is required to sua sponte hold a competency hearing when evidence coming to the court’s attention raises a bona fide or reasonable doubt as to appellant’s competency. 1 Mata v. State, 632 S.W.2d 355 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Morales v. State, 587 S.W.2d 418 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ferguson v. State, 579 S.W.2d 2 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Thomas, supra. Evidence raising a bona fide doubt is that evidence that produces a real doubt in the judge’s mind as to the defendant’s present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or as to his present ability | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Mata v. State
green
1 sentence1983Thus, a trial court is required to sua sponte hold a competency hearing when evidence coming to the court’s attention raises a bona fide or reasonable doubt as to appellant’s competency. 1 Mata v. State, 632 S.W.2d 355 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Morales v. State, 587 S.W.2d 418 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ferguson v. State, 579 S.W.2d 2 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Thomas, supra. Evidence raising a bona fide doubt is that evidence that produces a real doubt in the judge’s mind as to the defendant’s present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or as to his present ability | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Thomas v. State
green
1 sentence1983Thus, a trial court is required to sua sponte hold a competency hearing when evidence coming to the court’s attention raises a bona fide or reasonable doubt as to appellant’s competency. 1 Mata v. State, 632 S.W.2d 355 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Morales v. State, 587 S.W.2d 418 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ferguson v. State, 579 S.W.2d 2 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Thomas, supra. Evidence raising a bona fide doubt is that evidence that produces a real doubt in the judge’s mind as to the defendant’s present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or as to his present ability | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Pate v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1982Art. 46.02, Sec. 2(b), V.A.C.C.P. provides as follows: “If during the trial evidence of the defendant’s incompetency is brought to the attention of the court from any source, the court must conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether or not there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial.” In Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), the Supreme Court interpreted the due process clause to require that a criminal defendant be afforded an adequate hearing on competency to stand trial whenever the trial judge becomes aw 1982Art. 46.02, Sec. 2(b), V.A.C.C.P. provides as follows: “If during the trial evidence of the defendant’s incompetency is brought to the attention of the court from any source, the court must conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether or not there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial.” In Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), the Supreme Court interpreted the due process clause to require that a criminal defendant be afforded an adequate hearing on competency to stand trial whenever the trial judge becomes aw | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Ainsworth v. State
green
1 sentence1980Article 46.02 § 2(b), Y.A.C.C.P., provides: “(b) If during the trial evidence of the defendant’s incompetency is brought to the attention of the court from any source, the court must conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether or not there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial.” In Ainsworth v. State, 493 S.W.2d 517 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), it was stated: “An accused is not required to prove actual insanity or incompetency before the trial judge is required to conduct a separate hearing on the matter. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Dusky v. United States
green
2 sentences1978June 19, 1975. 1 This was a codification of the test of competency approved *914 by the United States Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). § 2(b) of Article 46.02, supra, in effect at the time of appellant’s trial, provided: “(b) If during the trial evidence of the defendant’s incompetency is brought to the attention of the court from any source, the court must conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether or not there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial.” 2 § 4(a) of Article 46.02, sup 1978June 19, 1975. 1 This was a codification of the test of competency approved *914 by the United States Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). § 2(b) of Article 46.02, supra, in effect at the time of appellant’s trial, provided: “(b) If during the trial evidence of the defendant’s incompetency is brought to the attention of the court from any source, the court must conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether or not there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial.” 2 § 4(a) of Article 46.02, sup | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.