A Starr County Case Returns to the Court of Appeals

A Starr County case reached the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio today, bringing a conviction for three counts of Super-Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child under close judicial examination. Jesus Moises Lopez received three life sentences last year. His attorney, Hilda Gonzalez Garza, is now asking the appellate court to decide whether the trial court followed the law when determining Lopez’s mental competency before trial.

Garza’s position rests on two issues. The first concerns a procedural step that Texas law does not treat lightly. Lopez had been initially found incompetent during the early stages of the case and was sent to a state hospital for restoration. After treatment, the hospital concluded he had regained competency and returned him to Starr County. The point of contention is what happened next. Under Texas law, a trial may resume only after the trial court itself makes a judicial determination of competency. The defense argues that determination never made it into the record.

Garza told the panel, “There is no judgment, no order, no docket sheet entry, or other evidence that the court ever made a determination of competency after appellant’s return from the state hospital.” She noted that while attorneys discussed competency informally, the statute requires a clear and identifiable ruling. Without it, the process that allows a case to move forward is incomplete. “There was nothing on the record that indicates, with the magic words, a finding, that he was competent, either through a docket entry, clerk's record, or reporter's record.”

She emphasized that the statute allows the determination to be oral or written, but it must be identifiable, because defense counsel is entitled to review the restoration report for fifteen days. Without that window, Garza argued, the required protections disappear. She explained that multiple attorneys had represented Lopez over the course of the case, and the record gives no certainty that every attorney received the necessary documentation. “I don’t know the condition of that particular defendant,” she said. “There was no report prior to when it was noted from the very beginning that this individual had mental issues.”

The State presented a different interpretation. Assistant District Attorney Alexandria Barrera told the court that several parts of the record point to a judicial determination, even if the court did not say the specific words Garza argued were required. She cited a bench warrant issued after the state hospital’s notice, a pretrial exchange where counsel acknowledged restored competency, and the judgments of conviction, which stated the court found the defendant mentally competent before trial. Barrera argued that the law does not require “magic words” and that the presumption of regularity applies.

Garza said due process does not rely on assumptions. “Due process of this particular defendant dictates that we must follow the rules.”

The second issue concerns discovery. Garza argued that the State failed to comply with the court’s discovery order regarding timely designation of witnesses, including the forensic interviewer. She maintained that statutory deadlines exist to give defense counsel time to prepare and that discovery orders are not optional. The State disputed any violation, asserting that the proper outcry witness had been designated and that, regardless, the evidence at trial was sufficient.

On the day of the hearing, Barrera addressed the case on her public social-media page. She described the day as her return to the appellate courtroom and wrote about the responsibility she felt representing the State. Her post included posed photos outside the Fourth Court of Appeals and a message emphasizing the weight of child-victim cases. She told readers, “Today was not just about defending convictions. It was about standing between a child and being hurt all over again.”

This is not the first time the Starr County 229th Judicial District Attorney’s Office has had its procedures examined. Barrera and District Attorney Gocha Allen Ramirez remain defendants in a federal lawsuit related to the arrest of Lizelle Gonzalez, who was charged with murder in 2022 after a self-induced abortion. The charge had no basis under Texas law and was dismissed, but the suit continues, alleging violations of constitutional rights and improper legal process. A federal judge allowed the case to proceed after denying motions to dismiss, and Ramirez faced disciplinary action from the State Bar of Texas in connection with the matter.

The scrutiny from that case carries over into the Lopez appeal. It is not because the facts are similar — they are not — but because both involve questions about how the office handles legal procedures that require strict compliance. Competency law protects more than case efficiency. It protects defendants’ rights, preserves accurate records, and ensures the foundation of a conviction cannot be undermined by missing documentation.

Garza closed her argument by reminding the court that justice relies on cooperation between prosecution, defense, and the bench when competency is at issue. When orders are entered, records must reflect them. When reports are received, the file must show it. When a defendant is restored, the court must make that clear. Those steps do not exist to slow cases down. They exist to protect the integrity of the proceedings, the rights of victims, and the validity of any outcome.

"We have so many mental health issues in our community that we need to go back and we need to refer to all the rules to make sure. Right now, the defense and the state are not working together. If we want justice to be served, we need to be working together, not trying to beat the other one or the other one. We want to bring justice. And it dictates that we work as officers of the court, advise the court, look, we have some shortcomings. This is what we need to do. That's part of the responsibility of being an officer to the court. You don't have to win every fight. You don't have to do that. You should extend the courtesy and say, look, I want to have a plain level playing field, and I'm going to go ahead and let you know we did not do this. There's nothing dishonest in that. It requires it."

The appellate court has not issued its decision.

@Santitos

@salinasmariasantos

Copyright © 2026 Maria Santos Salinas for FRONTeras.