Atomanczyk v. State of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
1DissentO’Connor, Justice
Appellant claims he was not competent to stand trial. He says he could not understand the proceedings against him, he could not consult with his counsel, and he could not help prepare his defense. If true, the State could not put him to trial on criminal charges. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172, 95 S.Ct. 896, 904, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). Our adversary system of justice insists that a defendant be competent at trial. Id. To convict a defendant while he is legally incompetent violates his rights to due process and due course of law. Ex parte Lewis, 587 S.W.2d 697, 700 (Tex.Crim.App.1979).
App…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Pate v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Drope v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Green v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1984
- Graham v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1978
- Sisco v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1980
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.