November 8 2011
DA 11-0327
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2011 MT 282N
IN THE MATTER OF
B.H.,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DI 11-4 Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Joslyn Hunt, Chief Appellate Defender, Eileen A. Larkin, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General, Matthew T. Cochenour, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney, Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 26, 2011
Decided: November 8, 2011
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 B.H. was admitted to Montana State Hospital (MSH) for treatment of diagnosed
mental illnesses, including schizophrenia. He was subsequently conditionally released to
Dakota Place. B.H. violated the terms of his conditional release and the Fourth Judicial
District Court ordered revocation of the conditional release. B.H. appeals the District
Court’s revocation order. We affirm.
ISSUE
¶3 Did the District Court err in revoking B.H.’s conditional release?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶4 B.H. is a 19-year-old male who has been treated for mental illness since age 6. On
January 20, 2011, B.H. was taken to the emergency room of St. Patrick’s Hospital for
cutting himself, threatening suicide, being extremely agitated and experiencing
hallucinations. He was evaluated by Marianne Smith, LCPC, a mental health
professional at the hospital. On January 21, the State petitioned to commit B.H. over his
family’s growing concern that B.H. might harm himself or others. The petition was
subsequently dismissed without prejudice when B.H. agreed to accept treatment on a
2 voluntary basis. B.H. was treated through the Western Montana Mental Health Center
and placed at Dakota Place.
¶5 In mid-February, B.H. left Dakota Place without notifying the staff, broke into his
mother’s house, and threatened his mother with her chef’s knife. He then left with the
knife. He was found the following day outside city hall, cutting his neck, arm and leg.
B.H. was taken again to the hospital and evaluated by LCPC Smith. Smith recommended
B.H. be detained, evaluated and treated at MSH. The State filed its second Petition for
Commitment and the District Court ordered B.H. to be evaluated, treated and detained at
MSH. B.H. waived his right to a hearing and agreed that commitment was appropriate.
¶6 B.H.’s doctors recommended that B.H. be allowed to participate in
community-based treatment where he would be required to comply with all medications
and recommended treatment. The doctor also stated that should B.H. not comply with
treatment in a community-based program or if he left the facility, B.H. should be
committed to MSH. B.H. was placed in a community-based crisis center where, within
24 hours of admission, he left without permission. B.H.’s doctors and mental health
professionals requested that B.H. be committed to MSH. The District Court so ordered.
B.H. again waived his right to a hearing and stipulated to treatment. On March 3, 2011,
the District Court ordered B.H. to “involuntary mental health treatment at the Montana
State Hospital.”
¶7 On April 12, 2011, B.H. was conditionally released to Dakota Place. While at
Dakota Place, he refused to take prescribed medication. He subsequently left the facility
without permission, stole his mother’s car, and was picked up by the police and detained
3 at the Missoula County Detention Center where Tim Myers, a clinical social worker at
Western Montana Mental Health Center, evaluated him. Based on Myers’ evaluation, on
April 29 the Missoula County Attorney petitioned for revocation of B.H.’s conditional
release on the grounds that he violated several conditions of his release including, but not
limited to, refusal to take medications as prescribed, destroying property and harming
others. The petition noted that B.H.’s condition had deteriorated and he was suicidal.
¶8 The court held a hearing on May 2, 2011. Prior to the hearing, Myers evaluated
B.H. a second time. Myers then testified at the hearing, reporting that B.H. had been
suffering from auditory hallucinations since leaving MSH and reporting to Dakota Place.
B.H. had told Myers during an evaluation that for awhile he was able to resist the voices
telling him to run, but then he could no longer resist and fled Dakota Place. Myers noted
that since B.H. violated the conditional release, B.H. displayed symptoms of poor
judgment and lack of impulse control. At the close of the hearing, the District Court
found that B.H. had violated his conditional release and that there was no less restrictive
environment available to B.H. than MSH. The court subsequently issued a written Order
Revoking Conditions of Release in which the court determined that B.H. had violated the
conditions of his release, his mental health had deteriorated as a result of his violations,
and he could no longer be treated at a less secure facility than MSH.
¶9 B.H. appeals arguing that the District Court did not comply with the requirements
of § 53-21-197(1)(b), MCA.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
4 ¶10 We review a district court’s civil commitment order to determine whether the
court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law are correct. In re
Mental Health of L.K.-S., 2011 MT 21, ¶ 14, 359 Mont. 191, 247 P.3d 1100.
DISCUSSION
¶11 B.H. states that the District Court’s oral pronouncement at the end of the May 2
hearing differs from the written pronouncement; therefore, the oral pronouncement
controls. He argues that the District Court’s oral ruling failed to find by clear and
convincing evidence that his violation of the terms of his conditional release caused a
deterioration of his mental health condition as required by § 53-21-197, MCA. Section
53-21-197(1)(b), MCA, provides:
Hearing on rehospitalization petition -- revocation of conditional release. (1) The court may order that the patient’s conditional release status be revoked and that the patient be returned to the mental health facility from which the patient was conditionally released or be sent to another appropriate inpatient mental health facility if, after a hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that: . . . (b) the conditionally released patient has violated a condition of the release, that the violation has caused a deterioration of the patient’s mental condition, and that as a result of this deterioration, the patient can no longer be appropriately served by outpatient care.
¶12 B.H. contends that Montana’s civil commitment laws must be strictly followed
and the District Court’s failure to orally pronounce that B.H.’s mental condition had
deteriorated since he violated the conditions of his release constitutes a failure to strictly
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
November 8 2011
DA 11-0327
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2011 MT 282N
IN THE MATTER OF
B.H.,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DI 11-4 Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Joslyn Hunt, Chief Appellate Defender, Eileen A. Larkin, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General, Matthew T. Cochenour, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney, Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 26, 2011
Decided: November 8, 2011
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 B.H. was admitted to Montana State Hospital (MSH) for treatment of diagnosed
mental illnesses, including schizophrenia. He was subsequently conditionally released to
Dakota Place. B.H. violated the terms of his conditional release and the Fourth Judicial
District Court ordered revocation of the conditional release. B.H. appeals the District
Court’s revocation order. We affirm.
ISSUE
¶3 Did the District Court err in revoking B.H.’s conditional release?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶4 B.H. is a 19-year-old male who has been treated for mental illness since age 6. On
January 20, 2011, B.H. was taken to the emergency room of St. Patrick’s Hospital for
cutting himself, threatening suicide, being extremely agitated and experiencing
hallucinations. He was evaluated by Marianne Smith, LCPC, a mental health
professional at the hospital. On January 21, the State petitioned to commit B.H. over his
family’s growing concern that B.H. might harm himself or others. The petition was
subsequently dismissed without prejudice when B.H. agreed to accept treatment on a
2 voluntary basis. B.H. was treated through the Western Montana Mental Health Center
and placed at Dakota Place.
¶5 In mid-February, B.H. left Dakota Place without notifying the staff, broke into his
mother’s house, and threatened his mother with her chef’s knife. He then left with the
knife. He was found the following day outside city hall, cutting his neck, arm and leg.
B.H. was taken again to the hospital and evaluated by LCPC Smith. Smith recommended
B.H. be detained, evaluated and treated at MSH. The State filed its second Petition for
Commitment and the District Court ordered B.H. to be evaluated, treated and detained at
MSH. B.H. waived his right to a hearing and agreed that commitment was appropriate.
¶6 B.H.’s doctors recommended that B.H. be allowed to participate in
community-based treatment where he would be required to comply with all medications
and recommended treatment. The doctor also stated that should B.H. not comply with
treatment in a community-based program or if he left the facility, B.H. should be
committed to MSH. B.H. was placed in a community-based crisis center where, within
24 hours of admission, he left without permission. B.H.’s doctors and mental health
professionals requested that B.H. be committed to MSH. The District Court so ordered.
B.H. again waived his right to a hearing and stipulated to treatment. On March 3, 2011,
the District Court ordered B.H. to “involuntary mental health treatment at the Montana
State Hospital.”
¶7 On April 12, 2011, B.H. was conditionally released to Dakota Place. While at
Dakota Place, he refused to take prescribed medication. He subsequently left the facility
without permission, stole his mother’s car, and was picked up by the police and detained
3 at the Missoula County Detention Center where Tim Myers, a clinical social worker at
Western Montana Mental Health Center, evaluated him. Based on Myers’ evaluation, on
April 29 the Missoula County Attorney petitioned for revocation of B.H.’s conditional
release on the grounds that he violated several conditions of his release including, but not
limited to, refusal to take medications as prescribed, destroying property and harming
others. The petition noted that B.H.’s condition had deteriorated and he was suicidal.
¶8 The court held a hearing on May 2, 2011. Prior to the hearing, Myers evaluated
B.H. a second time. Myers then testified at the hearing, reporting that B.H. had been
suffering from auditory hallucinations since leaving MSH and reporting to Dakota Place.
B.H. had told Myers during an evaluation that for awhile he was able to resist the voices
telling him to run, but then he could no longer resist and fled Dakota Place. Myers noted
that since B.H. violated the conditional release, B.H. displayed symptoms of poor
judgment and lack of impulse control. At the close of the hearing, the District Court
found that B.H. had violated his conditional release and that there was no less restrictive
environment available to B.H. than MSH. The court subsequently issued a written Order
Revoking Conditions of Release in which the court determined that B.H. had violated the
conditions of his release, his mental health had deteriorated as a result of his violations,
and he could no longer be treated at a less secure facility than MSH.
¶9 B.H. appeals arguing that the District Court did not comply with the requirements
of § 53-21-197(1)(b), MCA.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
4 ¶10 We review a district court’s civil commitment order to determine whether the
court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law are correct. In re
Mental Health of L.K.-S., 2011 MT 21, ¶ 14, 359 Mont. 191, 247 P.3d 1100.
DISCUSSION
¶11 B.H. states that the District Court’s oral pronouncement at the end of the May 2
hearing differs from the written pronouncement; therefore, the oral pronouncement
controls. He argues that the District Court’s oral ruling failed to find by clear and
convincing evidence that his violation of the terms of his conditional release caused a
deterioration of his mental health condition as required by § 53-21-197, MCA. Section
53-21-197(1)(b), MCA, provides:
Hearing on rehospitalization petition -- revocation of conditional release. (1) The court may order that the patient’s conditional release status be revoked and that the patient be returned to the mental health facility from which the patient was conditionally released or be sent to another appropriate inpatient mental health facility if, after a hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that: . . . (b) the conditionally released patient has violated a condition of the release, that the violation has caused a deterioration of the patient’s mental condition, and that as a result of this deterioration, the patient can no longer be appropriately served by outpatient care.
¶12 B.H. contends that Montana’s civil commitment laws must be strictly followed
and the District Court’s failure to orally pronounce that B.H.’s mental condition had
deteriorated since he violated the conditions of his release constitutes a failure to strictly
follow § 53-21-197(1)(b), MCA.
¶13 We are not persuaded by B.H.’s assertion that the court’s oral pronouncement
must control and render a subsequent written pronouncement moot. Unlike the criminal
5 context in which we have consistently held that “if there is a conflict between the oral
pronouncement of sentence and the subsequent written sentence, the oral pronouncement
of sentence controls,” (State v. Rennaker, 2007 MT 10, ¶ 48, 335 Mont. 274, 150 P.3d
960), we have not so instructed for civil commitments.
¶14 More to the point, despite the fact that the District Court did not expressly use the
word “deterioration” in its oral pronouncement, there was nonetheless clear and
convincing evidence that B.H.’s mental health had deteriorated since he fled Dakota
Place for the second time. Myers testified that B.H. told him during the prehearing
evaluation that his auditory hallucinations were now “nearly constant.” Additionally,
evidence of B.H.’s attitude toward medication and treatment appear to have significantly
changed for the worse after B.H. left Dakota Place, based upon Myers’ detention center
and prehearing evaluations. Lastly, Myer noted that B.H. was exercising poor judgment
and impulse control after most recently fleeing Dakota Place.
¶15 We conclude the District Court’s written pronouncement of revocation was in
compliance with the applicable statute and the court’s findings of fact were supported by
the evidence.
¶16 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. The
District Court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and the legal issues
are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court correctly interpreted.
¶17 We affirm.
6 /S/ PATRICIA COTTER
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT