NO. ___________________ 

IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

IN RE ALBERT JAMES TURNER 

 

Original Proceeding from the 368th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas 

The Honorable Brady Elliott, Presiding Judge 

Trial Court Cause No. 10-DCR-054233 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF PROHIBITION 

*Death Penalty Case*

Attorneys for Albert James Turner 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 

ROBERT A. MORROW

State Bar No. 14542600

24 Waterway Ave., Suite 660

The Woodlands, Texas 77380

Telephone: 281-379-6901

ramorrow15@gmail.com

AMY MARTIN

State Bar No. 24041402

202 Travis St., Suite 300

Houston, Texas 77002

Telephone: 713-320-3525

amymartinlaw@gmail.com

WR-80,559-02

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 1/21/2015 12:36:30 PM

Accepted 1/21/2015 4:42:01 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 1/21/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK 
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(a), the Relator identifies the following parties and 

the names and address of counsel:

1. Relator

Albert James Turner

Represented by:

Robert A. Morrow 

State Bar No. 14542600 

24 Waterway Ave., Suite 660

Woodlands, Texas 77380 

Telephone: 281-379-6901 

ramorrow15@gmail.com 

 Amy Martin

 State Bar No. 24041402

 202 Travis St., Suite 300

 Houston, Texas 77002

 Telephone: 713-320-3525

 amymartinlaw@gmail.com

2. Respondent

The Honorable Brady Elliott

Trial Court Judge

368th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas 

1422 Eugene Heimann Circle

Richmond, Texas 77469

Telephone: 281-341-8610

Fax: 281-341-8614
3

3. Real Party in Interest

The State of Texas

Represented by:

John F. Healy, Jr.

Fort Bend County District Attorney

Fred Felcman Assistant Criminal District Attorney

1422 Eugene Heimann Circle

Richmond, Texas 77469

Telephone: 281-341-4460

Fax: 281-341-4440

Fred.Felcman@fortbendcountytx.gov
4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL _____________________________2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES _________________________________________5

I. INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________6

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE _____________________________________6

III. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION_________________________________7

IV. ISSUES PRESENTED ___________________________________________7

1. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY MAKING A FEASIBILITY 

DETERMINATION OF RELATOR’S RETROSPECTIVE COMPETENCY TRIAL WITHOUT

DUE PROCESS ____________________________________________________7

2. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY PROCEEDING TO RELATOR’S 

RETROSPECTIVE COMPETENCY TRIAL WITHOUT THE FEASIBILITY DETERMINATION 

THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIRES _______________________________________7

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS ________________________________________8

VI. ARGUMENT _________________________________________________13

VII. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER__________________________________16

CERTIFICATION ________________________________________________17

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE _________________________________17

APPENDIX______________________________________________________18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _______________________________________19
5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) cert. granted, 

judgment vacated on other grounds, 453 U.S. 902 (1981)....................................8

Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) ...............................14

Caballero v. State, 587 S.W.2d 741, 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) .........................13

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 183 (1975) ...........................................................8

Ex parte Alba, 256 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)........................................13

Ex rel. Hilbig v. McDonald, 877 S.W.2d at 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)...............14

Greene v. State, 264 S.W.3d 271 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008)..........................8

Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645, 648-

49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)...................................................................................15

In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)................................14

In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 375 (Tex. 2011) .........................................................7

In re State ex re. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 121-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)...........13

Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)........................7

Smith v. Flack, 728 S.W.2d 784, 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987.................................15

Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), reh'g denied 

(Apr. 2, 2014)..........................................................................................................6

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) ............................................14

RULES

Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(a)..............................................................................................2

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3).......................................................17

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Tex. Const. Art. V, § 5...............................................................................................7
6

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS:

Now comes Albert James Turner, Relator, by and through his undersigned 

counsel, and files this Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Petition for Writ of 

Prohibition, and would respectfully show the Court as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

Relator requests that this Court enforce its opinion and direct Respondent to 

make the determination of feasibility that Due Process requires, prior to conducting 

a retrospective competency trial. This Court has consistently held that a 

retrospective competency trial is only constitutionally permissible if it is found to be 

feasible, and Mr. Turner’s case is no different. Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676, 

696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), reh'g denied (Apr. 2, 2014). 

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Underlying proceeding

Mr. Turner was, in violation of his Due Process rights, denied a competency 

trial during his capital murder trial in which he was sentenced to death. This Court 

instructed the trial court to determine if a retrospective competency trial is feasible. 

If it is not, the record of the proceedings on remand are to be sent to this Court to 

resume appellate review. Id. 
7

Respondent and Respondent’s actions

Respondent is The Honorable Brady Elliott presiding over the 268th District

Court in Fort Bend County, Texas. Judge Elliott has denied Mr. Turner Due Process 

by neglecting to make a proper feasibility determination prior to the imminent 

retrospective competency trial. 

III. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and writs of 

prohibition in criminal matters. See Tex. Const. Art. V, § 5; see also In re Reece, 

341 S.W.3d 360, 375 (Tex. 2011). This is a capital murder case in which the death 

penalty was assessed and therefore this petition is properly filed in this Court.

Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

IV. ISSUES PRESENTED

1. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY MAKING A 

FEASIBILITY DETERMINATION OF RELATOR’S RETROSPECTIVE 

COMPETENCY TRIAL WITHOUT DUE PROCESS

2. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY PROCEEDING TO 

RELATOR’S RETROSPECTIVE COMPETENCY TRIAL WITHOUT THE 

FEASIBILITY DETERMINATION THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIRES
8

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Feasibility first

This Court remanded this case because of a Due Process violation—an 

improper denial of a competency trial. The only possible remedy for that error is a 

retrospective competency trial. However, before conducting that trial, the trial court 

must “first determine whether it is presently feasible to conduct a retrospective 

competency trial.” Id. The feasibility determination is critical because of the 

inherent difficulties in these types of trials. Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567, 573 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1979) cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 453 U.S. 

902 (1981). The proceeding must be ruled feasible for it to go forward to ensure Mr. 

Turner’s due process rights are protected. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 183 

(1975). 

Counsel’s concerns

At a May 30, 2014 hearing, defense counsel requested a competency exam to 

determine Mr. Turner’s current competence 1. See Exhibit B: May 30, 2014 

Reporter’s Record on Determination of Retrospective Competency. The request was 

 

1 The request was based, in part, upon the opinion Greene v. State, 264 S.W.3d 271 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2008) in which the Court of Appeals found it unfeasible to have a retrospective 

competency trial because Appellant was incompetent and was “expected to remain incompetent 

for the indefinite future.” Id. at 272.
9

prompted by counsel’s unsuccessful attempts to communicate with Mr. Turner and 

particular concern for Mr. Turner’s lack of understanding of the proceedings given 

the very unusual legal posture of his case.

His perception of his attorneys and the legal system seems to be the same as 

it was at trial, but it’s radicalized. While he knows that this proceeding has 

something to do with competency, he believes it is a ruse so the judge and his lawyers 

can prevent him from filing motions; his motions have to be secret because if his 

lawyers hear about it they’ll shut him down. He frequently refers back to issues at 

trial, such as the deposition video that he knows was edited to hide exculpatory 

information from the jury. He is angry that his appellate lawyer, who represents him 

at this stage, didn’t bring this video issue up and knows that “he’s the one that’s 

really trying to kill me2.”

Feasibility in the future

 Respondent agreed that Mr. Turner’s current competency was relevant to

going forward. He also explained the standard he would use to determine 

competency: “. . . that is a finding that we’ve always followed in the law of 

 

2 Mr. Turner made these statements, and many more, during a jail phone call with his sister on 

November 3, 2014. Counsel does not have an official transcript of the call, but has listened to it, 

and many others, in its entirety. It is part of the discovery provided by the State.
10

competency that if the person won’t cooperate and won’t participate, they are

determined to be competent.” Id. at 8. Respondent ruled: 

Because the request is a due process request to assist counsel; and, 

therefore it would be the same standard as we use for trial. And I think 

that would – In the abundance of caution, I think that would be the best 

way to proceed; and we can get this done at the earliest convenience; 

and dependent upon their [experts] findings, we’ll hold a hearing very 

shortly thereafter to proceed to the feasibility part of this issue.

Id.

Counsel for the state and Relator each chose experts to conduct evaluations3. 

3 doctors attempted to interview Mr. Turner and he refused to see each of them4. 

Feasibility forgotten

On September 25, 2014, with no other hearing since May 30th, a 1 page Order 

was sent to the parties stating:

On this day, the Court considered whether a retrospective competency 

trial is feasible. After hearing the arguments of counsel, and 

considering the evidence available, the Court finds that a retrospective 

competency trial is feasible.

 

 

3 The State requested the court appoint Dr. Mitchell Dunn and then requested Dr. Dunn be replaced 

with Dr. David Self, who had to withdraw from the case, and ultimately they chose Dr. Mark 

Moeller to attempt to interview Mr. Turner. The Defense asked Dr. Mary Alice Conroy to 

interview Mr. Turner. Ultimately Dr. Self was able to attempt to see Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner 

refused to see Dr. Moeller, Dr. Conroy, and Dr. Self.
11

See Exhibit C Order on Feasibility of Retrospective Competency Trial. Trial was 

set for December 1, 2014. The Order had been attached to the April 28, 2014 State’s 

Bench Memorandum on the Feasibility of a Retroactive Competency Hearing5. See

Exhibit D. In fact, there was never a discussion or presentation of the “evidence 

available” and there were no “arguments of counsel.”

Requesting review of the feasibility

On defense counsel’s request, a pre-trial hearing was held on January 16, 2015

to ask the court to conduct a feasibility determination that meets the requirements of 

Due Process. See Exhibit E January 16, 2015 Reporter’s Record Motions Hearing, 

Volume I. At that time, defense counsel also presented Defendant’s Motion to 

Address Mr. Turner’s Current Incompetency and Brief in Support. Exhibit F.

Incomplete inquiry

Respondent denied Mr. Turner’s request and maintained that he had already 

appropriately determined feasibility at the May 30th hearing. Id. at pp.12,15. 

However, on May 30th, the only decision that had been made was that Mr. Turner’s 

current competency was relevant and that he should be evaluated by mental health 

 

5 The Memorandum included a list of video visits and phone calls from the time of trial that 

purportedly showed that there was enough evidence to have a retrospective competency trial.
12

professionals 6. Respondent described what he believed to be the feasibility 

determination:

I, in fact, conducted a hearing on May 30th of '14 where I found that it 

was feasible to go forward with the competency exam -- or feasible to 

go forward with a retrospective competency hearing. I also ordered at 

that time another competency exam with Mr. Turner, and he refused to 

talk to the doctors that I sent up to talk to him, so the feasibility issue 

has already been decided.

Id. at 12. Respondent refers to “all the evidence that is going to be produced 

is his competency at the time of the Trial on the Merits.” Id. at 13. The criminal 

proceedings against Mr. Turner began 4 years ago. As the prosecutor pointed out, 

among other things, Respondent is supposed to evaluate the “passage of time” and 

“the quality and quantity of the evidence.” Id. at 10. Additionally, this Court 

ordered the Respondent to consider “any other pertinent considerations” when 

making the feasibility determination. Turner at 696. 

There has never been a review of anything other than Mr. Turner’s refusal to 

speak with experts. There has been no discussion regarding the availability of lay

and expert witnesses, the recall of those witnesses, events that have occurred since 

the trial, or any other “pertinent considerations.” 

 

6 In its State’s Motion for Enforcement of the Trial Court’s Limited Jurisdiction on Remand, the 

State describes the hearing as “a procedural and scheduling hearing.” Exhibit G p.2
13

Respondent only looked at one issue. That limited and superficial evaluation 

of the evidence is not what this Court ordered and it is not enough to constitute a 

feasibility determination consistent with Due Process such that a retrospective 

competency trial can be conducted. 

Straight to trial

At present, there has been no testimony, evidence, or arguments regarding

feasibility. Determining the feasibility of a retrospective competency trial is done 

on a case-by-case basis; it is fact specific. Caballero v. State, 587 S.W.2d 741, 743 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Therefore, a proper determination requires facts. Due 

Process demands that Mr. Turner be given the opportunity to provide information to 

the trial court and that the information is thoughtfully considered.

VI. ARGUMENT

A. Applicable Mandamus Law

There are two requisites necessary in order to obtain relief on a writ of 

mandamus: (1) the act sought to be compelled is ministerial and (2) the party seeking 

relief must show that there is no adequate remedy at law7. In re State ex re. Weeks, 

391 S.W.3d 117, 121-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

 

7 The same requirements apply to writs of prohibition. See Ex parte Alba, 256 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008). 
14

“Clear right to the relief sought”

In this context, a ministerial act is one which is “clearly compelled by the legal 

authority extant in a given situation.” Ex rel. Hilbig v. McDonald, 877 S.W.2d at 

470 (citing Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945, 947-48 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1982)). As this Court has recognized, the clear right to the relief sought is the 

functional equivalent of a ministerial act. Id. (citation omitted). 

To show “a clear right to the relief sought,” Mr. Turner must show that the 

facts and circumstances of this case “dictate but one rational decision ‘under 

unequivocal, well-settled . . . and clearly controlling legal principles.’ ” In re 

McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (quoting Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 

at 117)8. Exhibit H.

Upon remand, this Court ordered an evaluation of all “pertinent 

considerations” to determine if a retrospective competency trial was feasible. Turner

at 696. The Respondent violated that Order and has not provided any forum in which 

Mr. Turner can present witnesses, submit evidence, and argue the feasibility issue.

 

8 In re McCann is another Petition for a Writ of Mandamus arising out of the same this case. Judge 

Elliott was also the Respondent in that proceeding which addressed the right of a client (Mr. 

Turner) to control his legal file. 
15

Mandamus/Prohibition is the only adequate remedy

Mandamus is the proper remedy to correct a clear abuse of discretion by a 

trial court when the relator has no adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer,

827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Because a trial court "has 

no ‘discretion’ in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts,"

a "clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute 

an abuse of discretion." Id. at 840.

Any conjured “potential review at a later time” is not an adequate remedy 

here. Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645, 

648-49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “In some cases, a remedy at law may technically 

exist; however, it may nevertheless be so uncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow, 

inconvenient, inappropriate or ineffective as to be deemed inadequate.” Smith v. 

Flack, 728 S.W.2d 784, 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).

This Court has ordered the Respondent to make a feasibility determination 

before proceeding with a retrospective competency trial to ensure that Mr. Turner’s 

Due Process rights are protected. Turner at 696. Respondent must consider all 

“pertinent considerations” when making that determination. Id. Respondent abused 

his discretion by failing to follow this Court’s unambiguous mandate.
16

 The only adequate remedy for Mr. Turner is for this Court to issue the Writs 

of Mandamus and Prohibition in order to stay the trial and allow time for a proper

feasibility determination with the necessary Due Process protections.

VII. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Relator respectfully requests

that this Honorable Court grant this Petition for a Writ of Prohibition directing the 

Respondent to postpone the retrospective competency trial and grant this Petition for 

Writ of Mandamus and direct Respondent to conduct a hearing on the feasibility of 

a retrospective competency trial.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________ 

ROBERT A. MORROW 

State Bar No. 14542600 

24 Waterway Ave., Suite 660

The Woodlands, Texas 77380 

Telephone: (281) 379-6901 

ramorrow15@gmail.com

_____________________________ 

AMY MARTIN

State Bar No. 24041402

202 Travis St., Suite 300

Houston, Texas 77002

Telephone: (713)320-3525

amymartinlaw@gmail.com

Robert A. Morrow 

Amy Martin 
17

CERTIFICATION

I certify that I have reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual 

statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the 

appendix or record.

____________________________ 

ROBERT A. MORROW 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I certify that

this petition contains 2,810 words (excluding the caption, identity of parties and

counsel, table of contents, index of authorities, signature block, certification,

certificate ofservice, certificate of compliance, and appendix). This is a computergenerated document created in Microsoft Word using a conventional l4-point

typeface for all text, e x c e p t f o r f o o t n o t e s, which are i n 1 2 -point 

t y p e f a c e . In m a k i n g t h i s certificate of compliance, I am relying on the

word count of the computer program used to prepare this document.

____________________________ Robert A. Morrow 

Robert A. Morrow 
18

APPENDIX 
19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus and Petition for Writ of Prohibition was faxed and/or delivered 

electronically on January 21, 2015 to:

Respondent

The Honorable Brady Elliott

Trial Court Judge

368th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County 

1422 Eugene Heimann Circle

Richmond, Texas 77469

Telephone: 281-341-8610

Fax: 281-341-8614

Real Party in Interest

John F. Healy, Jr.

Fort Bend County District Attorney

Fred Felcman

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

1422 Eugene Heimann Circle

Richmond, Texas 77469

Telephone: 281-341-4460

Fax: 281-341-4440

Fred.Felcman@fortbendcountytx.gov

____________________________ 

ROBERT A. MORROW 

Robert A. Morrow