in the Matter of L. A. T. ( 2015 )

Reversed and Rendered and Opinion Filed July 30, 2015
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00043-CV
IN THE MATTER OF L.A.T.
On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 401-82467-03
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
Appellant was tried for capital murder and acquitted by reason of insanity. Thereafter,
the trial court ordered that appellant be placed in a maximum security mental health facility
where she stayed for approximately two years until, at the request of the state hospital’s
superintendent, appellant was released into an outpatient treatment program. Each year
thereafter, pursuant to section 574.066 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, the State filed a
motion to renew appellant’s outpatient treatment.
In 2013, the trial court modified appellant’s level of outpatient supervision by reducing
her level of treatment from an intensive level of care to contact with her psychiatrist, Dr. John
Bennett, once every six weeks and contact with a caseworker once a month. In 2014, the State
filed a motion to renew the trial court’s 2013 outpatient treatment order. At the hearing on the
motion, Bennett was the sole witness. Bennett testified that appellant has schizoaffective
disorder but she is now asymptomatic. He testified that ten to fifteen percent of those diagnosed
with this disorder go into remission and no longer need treatment. Bennett testified that he
anticipated appellant would be a part of the ten to fifteen percent. According to Bennett,
appellant has not been on medication since 2008 and she has not experienced any deterioration in
her condition since that time. She is also able to function independently. Furthermore, Bennett
testified that appellant is not a danger to herself or others and she no longer meets the criteria for
inpatient or outpatient treatment. However, when asked if he could guarantee that appellant
would not relapse, Bennett stated that he could not. After considering this and other evidence,
the trial court granted the State’s motion to renew appellant’s outpatient treatment. Appellant
now appeals, contending the evidence is legally insufficient to support the order renewing her
outpatient treatment.
The offense with which appellant was charged occurred before September 1, 2005.
Accordingly, former article 46.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides the
procedure by which hearings seeking to continue appellant’s outpatient treatment must be
conducted. Specifically, former article 46.03 requires that recommitment hearings be conducted
pursuant to the Texas Mental Health Code.1 See Act of May 25, 1983, 68th Leg., R.S., ch. 454,
§ 3, sec. 4(d)(5), 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 2640, 2644–46, repealed by Act of May 27, 2005, 79th
Leg., R.S., ch. 831, § 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 2841, 2841; see also House v. State, 222 S.W.3d
497, 507 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). Under the mental health code,
the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the proposed patient is mentally
ill; (2) the mental illness is severe and persistent; (3) as a result, the proposed patient will suffer
severe and abnormal emotional, physical, or mental distress if not treated; and (4) the proposed
patient will continue to experience deterioration in her ability to function independently to the
1
The requirements for renewal of inpatient and outpatient treatment changed for all offenses committed after September 1, 2005. See Act of May
27, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 831, § 5, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 2841, 2853–54 (current version at TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 46C.261 (West
Supp. 2014)) (court shall renew order if party who requested renewal establishes by clear and convincing evidence that mandatory supervision
and treatment are appropriate).
–2–
extent she will be unable to live safely in the community without court-ordered outpatient
treatment. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.035(b) (West Supp. 2014). The evidence
is clear and convincing only if the State shows that appellant committed a recent overt act or a
continuing pattern of behavior that demonstrates the patient’s distress, deterioration of ability to
function independently to the extent that the proposed patient will be unable to live safely in the
community, and inability to participate in outpatient treatment effectively or voluntarily. See
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.035(f).
Here, the State concedes the evidence before the trial court is legally insufficient to
support the order granting the State’s motion to renew appellant’s outpatient treatment. After
reviewing the evidence, we agree that there is no evidence to support the order. Bennett testified
that appellant has schizoaffective disorder, but his testimony that appellant is asymptomatic
counters the contention that her mental illness is severe and persistent. Also, Bennett testified
that appellant functions independently, perfectly complies with treatment, and has not
deteriorated in her condition, which is also evidence contrary to the requirements under the
mental health code. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.035(b)–(f).
Although the State concedes the evidence is legally insufficient, it asks the Court to
reverse and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings. In support of its argument
to remand, the State relies on several cases, each of which remands based on a procedural or trial
error. See State v. Roland, 973 S.W.2d 665, 666–67 (Tex. 1998) (untimely hearing); Harrison v.
State, 239 S.W.3d 368, 374 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007, no pet.) (denial of right to jury trial);
Campbell v. State, 118 S.W.3d 788, 804–05 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.)
(improper jury question).
The State also relies on former article 46.03, section 4(d)(5) of the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure in arguing that remand is the appropriate disposition of this case. In
–3–
particular, it contends that former article 46.03 provides that appellant “may only be discharged
by order of the committing court.” See Act of May 25, 1983, 68th Leg., R.S., ch. 454, § 3, sec.
4(d)(5), 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 2640, 2644–46 (repealed 2005); Harrison, 239 S.W.3d at 374.
However, in making this argument the State fails to address rule 43.3 of the rules of appellate
procedure, which generally requires this Court to render the judgment the trial court should have
rendered. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.3; see also In the Interest of J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 259 (Tex.
2002) (rendition of judgment generally required if evidence is legally insufficient); State ex rel.
D.L.S., 446 S.W.3d 506, 520 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.) (reversal and rendition proper
remedy where issue sustained on legal sufficiency grounds). Because this Court has authority to
render the judgment the trial court should have rendered, remand is unnecessary. See In re
D.F.R., 945 S.W.2d 210, 215 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (reversing and rendering
because no evidence was presented during hearing and as a result acquitee was not afforded
“mandatory statutory safeguards”); Khateeb v. State, 712 S.W.2d 881, 885 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 1986, no writ) (reversing and rendering because State did not show by clear and
convincing evidence that acquitee met involuntary commitment or court-ordered mental health
services criteria).
Accordingly, we sustain appellant’s issue. We reverse the trial court’s order renewing
outpatient supervision and treatment. We render judgment that appellant be released effective
immediately from any court-ordered mental health services.
150043F.P05
/Carolyn Wright/
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE MATTER OF L.A.T. On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District
Court, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-15-00043-CV Trial Court Cause No. 401-82467-03.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright,
Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart
participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court renewing
outpatient supervision and treatment is REVERSED and judgment is RENDERED that
appellant Lisa Ann Trevino be released effective immediately from any court-ordered mental
health services.
Judgment entered July 30, 2015.
–5–