Turner, Albert James ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. AP-76,580
ALBERT JAMES TURNER, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. 10-DCR-054233
IN THE 268 TH DISTRICT COURT
FORT BEND COUNTY
P ER CURIAM. N EWELL, J., did not participate.
ORDER
In June 2011, a jury convicted appellant of capital murder for intentionally
murdering more than one person during the same criminal transaction. See T EX. P ENAL
C ODE § 19.03(a)(7)(A). Pursuant to the jury’s answers to the special issues set forth in
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.071, sections 2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge
sentenced appellant to death. T EX. C ODE C RIM. P ROC. Art. 37.071, § 2(g).1 Direct appeal
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all future references to Articles refer to the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
Turner - 2
to this Court was automatic. Art. 37.071, § 2(h).
In the course of reviewing appellant’s twenty-four points of error on direct appeal,
this Court noted that, in fourteen of those points, appellant claimed that he was
incompetent to stand trial or that the trial court should have paused the trial to conduct a
formal competency hearing as his trial counsel repeatedly requested. See Turner v. State,
422 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). After reviewing the events surrounding
the competency issue, this Court sustained appellant’s ninth point of error, abated the
appeal, and remanded the cause to the trial court. Id. at 696. On remand, we ordered the
trial court to “first determine whether it is presently feasible to conduct a retrospective
competency trial, given the passage of time, availability of evidence, and any other
pertinent considerations.” Id. at 696-97. Secondly, “[s]hould the trial court deem a
retrospective competency trial to be feasible,” we ordered it to “proceed to conduct such a
trial in accordance with Chapter 46B, Subchapter C, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Id. The record of the proceedings on remand were then to be returned to this Court for
reinstatement of the appeal. Id.Because it has been nearly three years since we remanded this case to the trial
court, we order that court to immediately answer the following questions:
(1) Is it presently feasible to conduct a retrospective competency trial, given the
passage of time and the current availability of evidence? And,
(2) If it is not feasible, then why is it not feasible?
The trial court shall send to this Court the written answers to these questions within ten
Turner - 3
days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016.
Do Not Publish