Opinion
No. 09-10-00005-CV
Submitted on July 1, 2010.
Opinion Delivered July 22, 2010.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 99880.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Larry Eugene Long, Jr. appeals from an order signed pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure extending his involuntary inpatient mental health treatment for a period of one year. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46C.261 (Vernon 2006). In one issue, he challenges the "factual sufficiency" of the trial court's order. Because the evidence is factually sufficient and the order conforms to the law, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
In January 2007, the grand jury indicted Long for aggravated assault. In April 2009, Long was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was ordered committed to an inpatient treatment facility.
The State filed a motion to renew the order for extended mental health services. The State attached to the motion two Physician's Certificates of Medical Examination for Mental Illness completed by Dr. David Baker and Dr. Olayemi Faniran. The certificates state that Baker and Faniran examined Long and determined that he is "suffering severe and abnormal mental, emotional[,] or physical distress" with "substantial mental or physical deterioration of his ability to function independently," and he is "not able to make a rational and informed decision as to whether to submit to treatment." Baker's certificate also states that based on his examination, Long is "likely to cause serious harm to others."
Under the applicable provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, not later than the thirtieth day before an order of inpatient commitment is scheduled to expire, the State may file a request for the order's renewal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46C.261(b). "The request for renewal must be accompanied by a certificate of medical examination for mental illness signed by a physician who examined the person during the 30-day period preceding the date on which the request is filed." Id. art. 46C.261(c). The renewal request for inpatient commitment must provide a detailed explanation of why outpatient or community-based treatment and supervision are not appropriate. Id. art. 46C.261(b).
Once the request for renewal is filed, the court sets the matter for a hearing and appoints an attorney to represent the person. Id. art. 46C.261(d). Absent an objection, the court may admit a certificate of medical examination for mental illness. Id. art. 46C.261(g). Once admitted, a certificate constitutes competent medical or psychiatric testimony, and the court may make its findings solely from the certificate and the detailed request for renewal. Id.
Article 46C.261(h) provides that a court shall renew an order for inpatient commitment "only if the court finds that the party who requested the renewal has established by clear and convincing evidence that continued mandatory supervision and treatment are appropriate." Id. art. 46C.261(h). The renewal order allows continued inpatient commitment for not more than one year. Id.
At the hearing on the motion to renew the commitment order in this case, Drs. Baker and Faniran testified. Dr. Baker, a psychiatrist, has treated Long at the North Texas State Hospital Vernon Campus since Long was admitted in May 2009. When Long arrived at the campus, Baker diagnosed him with "psychotic disorder N-O-S," which Baker explained is a diagnosis given when there is a perception of psychosis but the particular category of psychosis has not yet been identified.
Baker prescribed Long the medication Zyprexa. Two or three days later, Baker substituted the Zyprexa with Seroquel, a medication that Long had taken in the past and preferred. Long was uncooperative in taking the Seroquel on a regular basis, however, and the hospital obtained a court order to medicate Long against his will. Initially, Long was injected with 25 milligrams of Risperdal Consta every two weeks. His dosage was subsequently increased to 37.5 milligrams every two weeks.
Baker testified Long's condition deteriorated since his arrival at the hospital, but that the medication had reduced the severity of the deterioration. While hospitalized, Long did not bathe and there was a period of time when Long would eat his own feces. In Baker's opinion, Long suffers from severe and abnormal mental, emotional or physical distress. Baker stated that if Long was not in a hospital setting like Vernon State Hospital, that his behavior "would be quite unpredictable" and that he would likely cause serious harm to others. Baker testified that if Long discontinued his medication "he would begin experiencing the world in paranoid terms just as occurred at the time of the offense where he shot somebody in the leg." Baker "fe[lt] strongly" that Long should remain hospitalized and treated for his mental illness.
Dr. Olayemi Faniran also examined Long at the hospital. Although not his treating physician, Faniran testified that she agrees with Baker's assessment that Long suffers from schizophrenia, paranoid type. She testified Long has not been able to adequately care for himself, would refuse to bathe after defecating on himself, and is "not motivated enough because of the illness to do things that any other individual would do spontaneously[.]" She testified Long needs ongoing mental health treatment, which would be better met in an inpatient setting because she is unsure he will comply with his medication if he is in another setting. At the time she examined him he was not threatening others, but she testified that Baker, as Long's treating physician, would be in a better position to say whether Long is likely to cause serious harm to others.
Long testified at the hearing that he takes Seroquel once a week and he likes taking it. He stated that since he had been transferred to the jail for the hearing he had not taken his medication because it has not been administered to him. He said he would not like to go home because he was "having trouble with [his] mama." He denied eating his feces and stated, "I'm ready to stay in jail because I don't want to stay with my mama because I feel like somebody turning on me over there and then I might shoot somebody else in the leg."
Long's father testified that Long is more coherent when he is off his medication and that he is not receiving proper treatment at Vernon State Hospital. His father asked the trial court to release Long into his care and custody. Long's father admitted that Long was living with him when he committed the offense, and that if the trial court released Long into his care he would have to get assistance because he could not monitor Long "24 hours a day, 7 days a week[.]"
The trial court included its findings in its order of renewal. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that "Long continues to suffer from a severe mental illness, namely paranoid schizophrenia; that as a result of his mental illness, Larry Long is likely to cause serious harm to others; and Larry Long suffers severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress, all necessitating Patient's continued in-patient treatment at the Vernon Campus." The trial court's renewal order committed Long to the Vernon Campus for extended mental health care services to treat his severe mental illness for a period of time not to exceed one year, pursuant to Article 46C.261 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Long complains that the trial court erred in entering an order renewing court-ordered inpatient extended mental health services, because the order is "factually insufficient." Specifically, Long argues that (1) the oral findings did not comport with the statutory requirements of the Health and Safety Code section 574.035; (2) the oral findings and the written order conflict, thereby nullifying the written order; and (3) the written order erroneously states that Long testified that he wanted to return to the Vernon Campus.
Section 574.035 is not directly applicable here. In 2005, the Texas Legislature amended the Code of Criminal Procedure to add "Chapter 46C. Insanity Defense." See Act of May 27, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 831, 2005 §§ 2, 5, Tex. Gen. Laws 2841. The 2005 amendment states that it applies "only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act." Act of May 27, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 831, § 5, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 2841, 2853-54. The indictment in this case charged the offense occurred in 2007. Article 46C.261(h) now provides that a court must renew an order for inpatient commitment only if the court finds that the party who requested the renewal has established by clear and convincing evidence that "continued mandatory supervision and treatment are appropriate." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46C.261(h).
Long relies on Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), in arguing that the judgment must be modified to conform to the court's oral pronouncement of its findings, which he claims are insufficient to support the order. In Coffey, the Court held that, in a criminal case, when the trial court's oral pronouncement of the defendant's sentence and its written memorialization of the sentence vary, the oral pronouncement controls. Coffey, 979 S.W.2d at 328.
A commitment proceeding is a civil case. See In the Interest of G.D., 10 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. App.-Waco 2000, no pet.); see also N.W. v. State, 678 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1984, no writ); Taylor v. State, 671 S.W.2d 535, 539 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st] 1983, no writ). In a civil case, where there is a conflict between the trial court's oral pronouncements and its subsequent written order, generally the matters set forth in the written order control. See In re JDN Real Estate-McKinney L.P., 211 S.W.3d 907, 914 n. 3 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, orig. proceeding), mand. denied, In re City of McKinney, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 6008 (Tex. 2009); see also Capital Fin. Commerce AG v. Sinopec Overseas Oil Gas, Ltd., 260 S.W.3d 67, 85 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st] 2008, no pet.).
Long maintains the written order erroneously states that he testified he would rather stay at Vernon State Hospital than be released. At the hearing, Long testified he would "rather stay in jail" than be released. Regardless, this is an involuntary commitment, and whether the trial court correctly concluded Long wanted to be in the hospital is not a determinative issue.
In its renewal order, the trial court found "by clear and convincing evidence that Larry Long continues to suffer from a severe mental illness, namely, paranoid schizophrenia; that as a result of his mental illness, Larry Long is likely to cause serious harm to others; and Larry Long suffers severe and abnormal mental, emotional or physical distress, all necessitating Patient's continued in-patient treatment at the Vernon Campus." These findings are sufficient under the applicable statute. We have reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's findings. The trial court could reasonably find the testimony of Dr. Baker and Dr. Faniran credible. Appellant's own testimony also supports the findings. The trial court was not required to accept the testimony of Long's father. The trial court's findings are supported by sufficient evidence. The State established by clear and convincing evidence that "continued mandatory supervision and treatment are appropriate." See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46C.261(h).
Appellant's issue is overruled. The order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.