CROSSOVER: Beyond the ‘Vibes Check’: Why Family Courts Cannot Ignore Claims of Incompetency in High-Stakes Litigation
Gerardo Solis III v. State, 13-24-00484-CR, February 19, 2026.
On appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that a trial court abuses its discretion when it resolves a suggestion of incompetency by weighing evidence of competency against evidence of incompetency during an informal inquiry. If there is “some evidence” from any source that would support a finding of incompetency, the trial court must stay the proceedings and appoint an expert to evaluate the party, rather than relying on its own courtroom observations to dismiss the claim.
Relevance to Family Law
While Solis arises from a criminal revocation, its holding is a cautionary tale for Texas family law practitioners handling cases involving parties with cognitive impairments, severe mental health crises, or substance-induced incapacity. In high-conflict SAPCR or complex property litigation, a party’s “present ability to consult with their lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” is a due process threshold. If a trial court performs a cursory “colloquy” with a party and decides they “seem fine” despite evidence to the contrary, the entire proceeding—and any resulting orders or decrees—may be vulnerable to reversal for a failure to follow the mandatory abatement and expert appointment procedures.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
In the underlying proceeding, Gerardo Solis III faced a motion to revoke his community supervision. At the hearing, Solis’s counsel raised a formal suggestion of incompetency, informing the court that Solis was unable to respond to questions or provide clear answers during jail visits. The trial court attempted to resolve the issue immediately by questioning Solis directly. Solis was able to identify the judge, his attorney, and the fact that he was in a courtroom. Based on these coherent responses, the trial court expressed skepticism toward counsel’s concerns.
However, counsel persisted, demonstrating that Solis did not understand the actual charges and believed he was merely “pulled over for bad things.” Further evidence was provided by Solis’s grandmother, who testified that Solis was “not in his five senses,” could not comprehend basic questions despite being respectful, and had regressed to a state where his primary activity was using “coloring books and colors.” Despite this testimony, the trial court concluded that Solis’s ability to answer basic questions clearly during the hearing meant there was no reason to doubt his competency. The court revoked his supervision and sentenced him to imprisonment.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to abate the proceedings and appoint a competency expert after defense counsel and a witness provided “some evidence” of the defendant’s inability to understand the charges or assist in his defense.
Rules Applied
The court applied Article 46B of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs competency determinations. Under this framework—and the Supreme Court/CCA precedents of Boyett v. State and Turner v. State—the process involves two steps: an informal inquiry and a formal competency trial. The “informal inquiry” is triggered by any “suggestion” of incompetency. The standard at this stage is whether there is “some evidence” (more than a scintilla) from any source that would support a finding of incompetency. Crucially, the trial court is prohibited from weighing evidence of competency against evidence of incompetency during this initial phase.
Application
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the trial court’s conduct and found it legally flawed. The trial court focused on its own interaction with the defendant, noting that he answered questions “clearly” and “properly.” The appellate court determined that this was an improper “weighing” of evidence. By using the defendant’s coherent courtroom demeanor to negate the testimony of the grandmother and the representations of the attorney, the trial court skipped the gatekeeping function of the informal inquiry and moved straight to a final conclusion of competency without an expert.
The court noted that while a defendant is presumed competent, the “some evidence” standard is a low bar. The grandmother’s testimony regarding Solis’s regression to coloring books and his inability to understand the nature of the proceedings, combined with counsel’s statement that the client could not assist in the defense, constituted more than a scintilla of evidence. Once that threshold was met, the trial court’s discretion vanished; it was required to appoint an expert.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion. The court emphasized that the proper inquiry at the informal stage is whether—putting aside all competing indications of competency—there is some evidence that rationally leads to a conclusion of incompetency.
Because the trial court improperly weighed the defendant’s “clear” answers against the evidence of his mental decline, the appellate court abated the appeal and remanded the case. The trial court was ordered to conduct a proper competency evaluation and, if necessary, a formal competency trial to determine if the defendant was competent at the time of the original revocation hearing.
Practical Application
For the family law litigator, this case reinforces the strategy for handling a client (or an opposing party) who appears mentally unstable. If you represent a party who cannot provide rational input on property division or child custody arrangements, you must raise the issue of competency early.
Conversely, if an opposing party is clearly struggling, allowing a judge to perform a “vibes check” and move to a final trial is a recipe for an appeal. A decree entered against an incompetent person without a guardian ad litem or a proper competency inquiry is a ticking jurisdictional time bomb. Litigators should use the Solis standard to demand an expert appointment the moment “some evidence”—even if contradicted by the party’s own behavior in court—is presented.
Checklists
Identifying and Raising Incompetency
- Evaluate Client Communication: Determine if the client can provide a “rational and factual understanding” of the legal issues, or if they are merely echoing “yes/no” answers without comprehension.
- Identify External Evidence: Gather testimony from family members, medical records, or history of substance abuse that indicates a cognitive deficit.
- Trigger the Informal Inquiry: Make a formal suggestion of incompetency on the record.
- Avoid the “Demeanor Trap”: Remind the court that a party’s ability to be “respectful” or answer “who is your lawyer” does not legally negate evidence of an inability to assist in complex litigation.
Preserving the Record for Appeal
- Object to “Weighing”: If the trial court begins to list reasons why the party “looks fine,” object that the court is improperly weighing evidence during an informal inquiry.
- Proffer the “Scintilla”: Explicitly state for the record: “Your Honor, the testimony of [Witness] regarding [Behavior] constitutes ‘some evidence,’ which mandates an expert appointment under the Solis standard.”
- Request Abatement: Formally move to stay all proceedings, including discovery and hearings, until an expert evaluation is completed.
Citation
Gerardo Solis III v. State, 13-24-00483-CR & 13-24-00484-CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg, Feb. 19, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In a Texas divorce or custody case, the Solis holding can be weaponized to halt a proceeding when a party is in a downward spiral. If an opposing party is clearly incompetent but their counsel is pushing forward to a settlement or trial (perhaps to secure a favorable deal before the party’s condition is formalized), you can use Solis to force a stay.
By presenting even a “scintilla” of evidence regarding the opposing party’s incapacity—such as erratic emails, social media outbursts, or testimony from a collateral witness—you can compel the court to appoint an expert. This not only protects the integrity of the final judgment from a later bill of review but also forces the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem, which can fundamentally shift the tactical landscape of the litigation. Never let a judge’s “common sense” observation of a party’s “politeness” override the constitutional requirement for a rational defense.
~~240bc92b-d746-48a2-828f-6e335a2df651~~
Share this content:
