Staley v. Texas (Original)
Annotate this Case
The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether state or federal law disallows the execution of a mentally ill inmate who was previously found incompetent to be executed and later became competent only after he was involuntarily medicated pursuant to a court order. Appellant Steven Kenneth Staley applied for the writ of habeas corpus. Texas law provides that a "person who is incompetent to be executed may not be executed" and permits appeal to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court's order mandating involuntary medication of appellant was not permitted under the competency-to-be-executed statute and did not meet the requirements of other statutes that may permit involuntary medication. Because the trial court lacked authority to render it, the trial court's involuntary-medication order was vacated. Furthermore, the Supreme Court determined that, but for that unauthorized order, the evidence conclusively showed that appellant was incompetent to be executed, and, therefore, vacate dthe trial court's order finding appellant competent to be executed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.