The State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of K.F. v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-24-00258-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE § APPEAL FROM THE
BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION § COUNTY COURT AT LAW
OF K.F. § CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an accelerated appeal of a trial court’s judgment ordering the administration of
psychoactive medication to K.F. K.F.’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in compliance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State,
436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). 1 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
K.F. is a patient at Rusk State Hospital pursuant to an order for in-patient mental health
services. On August 7, 2024, an application was filed for court-ordered administration of
psychoactive medication to K.F., and on August 13, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing.
1
The Anders procedure also is appropriate when court-appointed counsel concludes an appeal from an
order to administer psychoactive medication is frivolous. In re State ex rel. Best Interest & Prot. of J.W., No. 12-
18-00077-CV, 2018 WL 4474309, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Sept. 19, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); cf. In re State ex
rel. Best Interest & Prot. of L.E.H., 228 S.W.3d 219, 220 (Tex. App–San Antonio 2007, no pet.) (concluding
that Anders procedure is appropriate when court-appointed counsel concludes an appeal from involuntary
commitment order is frivolous); cf. also In re T.R.G., No. 07–05–0179–CV, 2005 WL 2152915, at *1 (Tex. App.–
Amarillo Sept.7, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re E.M., No. 03-96-00703-CV, 1997 WL 217186, at *2 (Tex. App.–
Austin May 1, 1997, no writ) (op., not designated for publication).
At the hearing, Dr. Robert Lee testified that K.F. was under a court order for inpatient
mental health services pursuant to Chapter 46B of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which
arose from a criminal prosecution against K.F. for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 2
Lee testified that K.F. had a mental-illness diagnosis of Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and
Other Psychotic Disorder as well as a history of methamphetamine abuse. He further testified
that Appellant refused to take medication based on his belief that some of the medications are
“Satan’s medicines.” In the application, Lee stated that K.F. lacked the capacity to make rational
decisions related to his medications. Lee also stated that his desire to prescribe these
medications fell under the proper scope of treatment and that K.F. would be more likely to regain
competency faster if he took the medications than if he did not take them. Lee testified that the
medications should not interfere with K.F.’s ability to confer with his attorney in the underlying
criminal matter.
K.F. testified on his own behalf. He stated that the medications were “basically . . . a
chemical lobotomy” and “would mess with [his] competency and [ ] consciousness.”
The trial court found that the order to administer psychoactive medications was supported
by clear and convincing evidence. As a result, the trial court granted the application and
rendered an order for administration of psychoactive medication to K.F. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
K.F.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. In it, he states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the
record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance
with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978),
counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and
states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 3 We reviewed the record for
reversible error and found none.
2
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2024).
3
K.F.’s counsel provided him with a copy of the brief, notified him of his motion to withdraw as counsel,
informed him of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate his review of the
appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). K.F. was given time to file his
own brief. The time for filing a pro se brief expired, and no pro se brief has been filed.
2
CONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), K.F.’s counsel
moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Although we
agree with K.F.’s counsel that the appeal wholly is frivolous, we nonetheless deny counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Cf. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (right to counsel in suits
seeking termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court],
including the filing of a petition for review”); see State for Best Interest & Prot. of M.R., No.
12-19-00228-CV, 2020 WL 500772, at *2 (Tex. App.–Tyler Jan. 31, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(denying counsel’s motion to withdraw following analysis under Anders in case involving
administration of psychoactive medication). After disposition by the court of appeals, an appeal
of an order to administer psychoactive medication under these circumstances is made to the
Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 574.070(e), 574.108(a) (West
2017). Accordingly, we conclude that counsel’s obligation to K.F. has not yet been discharged.
See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. If K.F., after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition
for review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that
satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id.; State for Best Interest & Prot. of M.R., 2020
WL 500772, at *2. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
BRIAN HOYLE
Justice
Opinion delivered November 20, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
3
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
NOVEMBER 20, 2024
NO. 12-24-00258-CV
THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF K.F.
Appeal from the County Court at Law
of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 43743)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the
judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the
court below for observance.
Brian Hoyle, Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.