X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Appellant Robert Louis Martin was indicted for aggravated assault after he stabbed a cab driver multiple times in the chest and back with a knife. Following a bench trial on March 7, 2002, the trial court found appellant not guilty by reason of insanity, and he was committed to the maximum security unit at the North Texas State Hospital. The trial court subsequently extended appellant’s commitment order five times. The most recent extension, the trial court’s order dated June 29, 2005, forms the basis for this appeal. Appellant contended that the recommitment order is void, because it did not specify which statutory criteria formed the basis for recommitment. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. Texas Health & Safety Code �574.035(a) provides that a court may order extended inpatient mental health services if the trier of fact finds by clear and convincing evidence that, among other requirements, the proposed patient is mentally ill and as a result of that mental illness the proposed patient is likely to cause serious harm to himself or others. In the alternative, the court may order commitment if the proposed mentally ill patient is, as a result of mental illness, suffering severe and abnormal mental, emotional or physical distress; experiencing substantial mental or physical deterioration of the proposed patient’s ability to function independently, which is exhibited by the proposed patient’s inability, except for reasons of indigence, to provide for the proposed patient’s basic needs, including food, clothing, health or safety; and unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not to submit to treatment. Under Texas Health & Safety Code �574.035(c), the trial court must specify which of the criteria under �574.035(a) forms the basis for recommitment, the court stated. To be clear and convincing under �574.035(a), the court stated, the evidence must include expert testimony and evidence of a recent overt act or a continuing pattern of behavior that tends to confirm the likelihood of serious harm to the proposed patient or others or the proposed patient’s distress and the deterioration of the proposed patient’s ability to function. The trial court cannot make its findings solely from certificates of medical examination for mental illness but shall hear testimony, the court stated. Further, the trial court may not enter an order for extended mental health services unless appropriate findings are made and are supported by testimony taken at the hearing, the court stated. Appellant argued that the recommitment order was invalid because the trial court did not specify which of the criteria under �574.035(a) formed the basis for the order. The court agreed. The only recitations made by the trial court in its recommitment order, the court noted, were the general statements that appellant “still meets the criteria for involuntary commitment” and appellant “still requires inpatient treatment.” The order is invalid, the court held, because the trial court did not specify which criterion formed the basis of its order. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court’s order renewing its prior order for inpatient extended mental health services and rendered an order denying the state’s application for renewal of the prior order for extended mental health services. In a footnote, the court noted that the trial court in April 2006 released appellant from inpatient care and entered an order for outpatient services. However, the court stated that appellant’s appeal was not moot under the “collateral consequences” exception. Furthermore, the court stated, while appellant is in the outpatient services, the committing court will continue to have jurisdiction over appellant. If appellant fails to comply with his required regime or if appellant’s condition so deteriorates that out-patient care is no longer appropriate, the court stated that the director of the outpatient facility shall notify the committing court and appellant will be brought to the committing court to determine by hearing whether appellant should be remanded to an inpatient program. OPINION:Seymore, J.; Frost and Seymore, J.J. CONCURRENCE:Hudson, J., concurred without an opinion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.