Opinion
No. 4-05-00351-CR
Delivered and Filed: March 1, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.
From the County Court at Law No. 9, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 893765, Honorable Oscar J. Kazen, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice, Rebecca SIMMONS, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John Michael Levesque appeals his conviction for the unwarranted commitment of Ressie Levesque to a mental health facility. The State contends that Levesque has presented nothing for this court to review because his brief is inadequate. Levesque, as a pro se appellant, is not entitled to any special treatment and is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys. See Kindley v. State, 879 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet.). Although we agree with the State that Levesque's brief does not comply with all of the applicable appellate rules, we construe the brief as challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). In conducting a factual sufficiency review, we view all the evidence in a neutral light and will set aside the verdict only if the evidence is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or the contrary evidence is so strong that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been met. Escamilla v. State, 143 S.W.3d 814, 817 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (citing Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004)). We are not permitted to reweigh the evidence, rather we defer to the trier-of-fact's findings, particularly those based on credibility determinations. Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 407-09 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). The evidence showed that during the period in which Levesque and Ressie were engaged in divorce proceedings, Levesque filed an application for Ressie's emergency apprehension and detention for mental illness. Levesque did not mention the pending divorce proceedings when he filed the application. In the application, Levesque swore that Ressie had left him suicide and murder threats and that she was severely depressed. Ressie was being treated for breast cancer, and none of her doctors expressed concerns about her mental well-being. Several of Ressie's family and friends testified that they did not believe Ressie was a danger to herself or others. Ressie also testified that she had not threatened suicide or murder and was not depressed. Ressie was forcefully taken to the mental health facility but was released a few hours later after she was evaluated and a "negative medical" was returned. Levesque filed the application the day after a hearing in the divorce proceedings in which Ressie was awarded temporary support. The judge who presided over the hearing and entered the temporary orders testified that Levesque was very disruptive in the courtroom. The judge further testified that she had ordered a psychological evaluation of Levesque. During the divorce proceedings, the parties had appeared in court several times, and Levesque had never expressed any concern regarding Ressie's mental well-being. Although Levesque took the stand and professed to have filed the application because he was concerned with Ressie's mental health, we defer to the jury's findings with regard to credibility. The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support Levesque's conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.