Opinion
No. 14-05-00687-CV
Opinion filed October 24, 2006.
On Appeal from the 232nd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 877,816.
Reversed and Rendered.
Panel consists of Justices HUDSON, FROST, and SEYMORE. (HUDSON, J., concurs in the result only.)
OPINION
We are presented with an accelerated appeal from an order extending inpatient mental health services for a period of one year. 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. See Martin v. State, No. 14-04-00689-CV, 2005 WL 2787033, at *1 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 27, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.). The most recent extension, the trial court's order dated June 29, 2005, forms the basis for this appeal. In three issues, appellant contends (1) the recommitment order is void because it does not specify which statutory criteria formed the basis for recommitment, (2) the evidence is legally insufficient to support the order, and (3) the evidence is factually insufficient to support the order. We address only appellant's first issue because it is dispositive.
In April 2006, the trial court released appellant from inpatient care and entered an order for outpatient services. However, this appeal is not moot under the collateral consequences exception. See Johnstone v. State, 22 S.W.3d 408, 409 n. 1 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam) (applying mootness doctrine's collateral consequences exception to temporary mental health commitment orders); Campbell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 747, 753-54 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001), aff'd 85 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. 2002). Furthermore, while appellant is in the outpatient services, the committing court will continue to have jurisdiction over appellant. Act of May 25, 1983, 68th Leg., R.S., ch. 454, 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 2640, 2646 (repealed 2005) (current version at TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. art. 46-.261 (Vernon Supp. 2006)). If appellant fails to comply with his required "regime or if [appellant's] condition so deteriorate[s] that out-patient care is no longer appropriate" 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. Id.
I. APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Under former article 46.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, applicable to this case, recommitment hearings for persons found not guilty by reason of insanity must be conducted pursuant to the Texas Mental Health Code. See Act of May 25, 1983, 68th Leg., R.S., ch. 454, 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 2640, 2644-46 (repealed 2005) (current version at TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. art. 46-.261 (Vernon Supp. 2006)). Under section 574.066 of the Mental Health Code, a court may renew an order for inpatient mental health services if it finds the patient meets the criteria for involuntary commitment set forth in section 574.035(a) of the Mental Health Code. See TEX. HEALTH SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.066(f) (Vernon 2003) (specifying the procedure for the renewal of an order for extended mental health services).
Section 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 meets the following criteria:
(1) the proposed patient is mentally ill; and
(2) as a result of that mental illness the proposed patient:
(A) is likely to cause serious harm to himself;
(B) is likely to cause serious harm to others; or
(C) is:
(i) suffering severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress;
(ii) 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
(iii) unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not to submit to treatment
TEX. HEALTH SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.035(a) (Vernon 2003).
The trial court must specify which of the criteria under section 574.035(a)(2) forms the basis for recommitment. TEX. HEALTH SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.035(c) (Vernon 2003). In order to be clear and convincing under section 574.035(a), the evidence must include expert testimony and evidence of a recent overt act or a continuing pattern of behavior that tends to confirm (1) the likelihood of serious harm to the proposed patient or others, or (2) the proposed patient's distress and the deterioration of the proposed patient's ability to function. TEX. HEALTH SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.035(e) (Vernon 2003). The court cannot make its findings solely from certificates of medical examination for mental illness but shall "hear testimony." TEX. HEALTH SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.035(g). 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. Id. This testimony must include "competent medical or psychiatric testimony." Id.
II. VALIDITY OF RECOMMITMENT ORDER
In his first issue, appellant argues that the recommitment order is invalid because the trial court did not specify which of the criteria under section 574.035(a)(2) formed the basis for the order. See TEX. HEALTH SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.035(c). We agree.
The only recitations made by the trial court in its recommitment order were the general statements that (1) appellant "still meets the criteria for involuntary commitment" and (2) appellant "still requires inpatient treatment." Other courts of appeals have invalidated trial court orders for involuntary recommitment where the trial court failed to specify which criterion formed the basis of the court's decision. For example, in In re J.J., the Texarkana Court of Appeals found an order invalid because the order was a fill-in-the-blank form that stated the grounds of commitment in the disjunctive, and the trial court did not specify which criterion it was using for the commitment. 900 S.W.2d 353, 356 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995, no writ); see also In re J.S.C., 812 S.W.2d 92, 93 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1991, no writ) (holding order invalid where it found all three statutory criteria as basis but recited them "disjunctively" on a "fill-in-the blanks" judgment form); Khateeb v. State, 712 S.W.2d 881, 885 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1986, no writ) (holding that a "fill-in-the-blanks" judgment form must state the findings of the statutory criteria conjunctively, not disjunctively).
Likewise, in this case, the order is invalid because the trial court did not specify which criterion formed the basis of its order. Therefore, we sustain appellant's first issue.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order renewing its prior order for inpatient extended mental health services and render an order denying the state's application for renewal of the prior order for extended mental health services. See In re A.K., No. 12-05-00120-CV, 2005 WL 2155217, at *2 (Tex.App.-Tyler Sept. 7, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reversing trial court's recommitment order upon finding the order invalid because it failed to specify the criteria after which the order was based and rendering an order denying the application for renewal of the prior order for extended mental health services).