I understand Manuel and Jordan place limits on what can be reviewed upon appeal from a hearing to adjudicate guilt. E.g. Davis, 141 S.W.3d 694; Nava, 110 S.W.3d 491. But in affording the "hearing limited to the determination by the court of whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge", can the trial court properly consider occurrences or errors at the initial trial (guilty plea hearing)? Would the objection raised at the adjudication hearing be considered timely? Would a statutory defense be waived by procedural default, but still be available under guise of the Sixth Amendment? In my case defense counsel would like to say counsel at the original hearing was ineffective for failure to rely on an insanity defense. I think that such an attack cannot be raised as a defense to adjudication, but is there any definitive answer in our case law? Can the court grant a new trial on this basis at this point?

As I understand it, you have a motion to adjudicate and the defense is raising the voluntariness of the plea based on insanity? Or is the defense counsel raising a defense to the entire crime based on insanity? Either way, it is an appellate matter, the ineffective assistance of counsel or the voluntariness of the plea. I suppose he is trying to raise it in mitigation - hope your guy has more than technicals.

The law is settled. No new evidence can be presented to the trial court regarding guilt, as the time has passed from the guilty plea. No motion for new trial is available, as there is no conviction to grant retrial from.

Defendant can wait for adjudication and file a writ.