Appellant=s Motion for Rehearing Overruled; Reversed and Rendered;
Opinion of December 7, 2006 Withdrawn and Substitute Opinion filed March 1,
2007
Appellant=s Motion for Rehearing Overruled; Reversed and
Rendered; Opinion of December 7, 2006 Withdrawn and Substitute Opinion filed
March 1, 2007.
In The
Fourteenth Court of
Appeals
____________
NO. 14-05-00687-CV
ROBERT LOUIS MARTIN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 232nd District
Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No.
877,816
S U B S T I T U T E O P I N I O N
We overrule appellant=s motion for
rehearing. Our opinion dated December 7, 2006 is withdrawn, and we issue this
substitute 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.CHouston [14th Dist.] Oct. 27, 2005, no pet.) (mem.
op.). The June 2005 extension 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 limit our
discussion to appellant=s second issue because it is dispositive
I. Applicable Statutory Provisions
Section 574.035 of the Mental Health Code is entitled, AOrder for Extended
Mental Health Services.@ Tex.
Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 574.035 (Vernon
2003). Under 574.035 subsection (a), the trial court may order extended
inpatient mental health services if the trier of fact finds, by clear and
convincing evidence, that the proposed patient meets, among other
requirements, 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).
Commitment proceedings concerning persons who have been
found not guilty by reason of insanity are civil in nature. Campbell v.
State, 85 S.W.3d 176, 180 (Tex. 2002). Former article 46.03 of the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, applicable to this case, sets forth the
procedure for the insanity defense in criminal prosecutions, hearings, and
other procedures relating to appellant=s acquittal by
reason of insanity. See Act of May 25, 1983, 68th Leg., R.S., ch.
454, 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 2640, 2640B46 (repealed
2005) (current version at Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 46C.261 (Vernon Supp. 2006)). Under former
article 46.03 section 4(d)(5), recommitment hearings for persons found not
guilty by reason of insanity must be Aconducted pursuant
to the provisions of the Mental Health Code.@ Id.
Relative to the procedural requirements for conducting recommitment hearings,
former article 46.03 refers only to the AMental Health
Code.@ Id. The
statute does not specify which sections or subsections are applicable to a
recommitment hearing.
The State contends the trial court=s application of
the Mental Health Code is limited by section 574.066, which provides, in part,
that a Acourt may not
renew an order unless the court finds that the patient meets the criteria for
extended mental health services prescribed by sections 574.035(a)(1), (2), and
(3).@ Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 574.066 (Vernon
2006). Consequently, the State further contends section 574.035,
subsection (g) does not apply to a recommitment hearing conducted
pursuant to former article 46.03. Under subsection (g), the trial Acourt may not make
its findings solely from certificates of medical examination for mental
illness but shall hear testimony.@ Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 574.035(g)
(Vernon 2003).
We disagree with the State=s proposed
construction of the Mental Health Code. The subsections that follow
574.035(a) complement and augment the trial court=s duties when
determining whether a patient meets the criteria outlined in 574.035(a). If
the trial court determines that a patient meets the criteria under subsection
574.035(a), then it must specify the criterion or criteria in subsection
574.035(a)(2) that form the basis for that decision. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 574.035(c)
(Vernon 2003). To be Aclear and convincing@ under subsection
574.035(a), the evidence also 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)
proposed patient=s distress and the deterioration of his
ability to function. See Tex.
Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 574.035(e)
(Vernon 2003). The trial court may not recommit a patient unless
appropriate findings are made and supported by testimony taken at
the hearing. Tex. Health & Safety
Code Ann. ' 574.035(g). The testimony must include
competent medical or psychiatric testimony. Id.
The Texas Supreme Court has appropriately
distinguished statutory requirements for commitment proceedings and court‑ordered
mental health services from recommitment proceedings conducted pursuant to
former article 46.03 section 4(d)(5) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In
Campbell v. State, the court addressed whether sections 574.009 and
574.011 (the requirement that two medical certificates be on file before a
commitment hearing),
apply to recommitment hearings conducted pursuant to former article 46.03. 85
S.W.3d at 180. The court focused on language in former article 46.03 which
prescribes that the hearing be Aconducted pursuant
to the provisions of the Mental Health Code.@ Id.
(citation omitted). The court concluded that a hearing authorized under the
former article 46.03 section 4(d)(5) Amust comply with
those Mental Health provisions pertinent to conducting commitment
hearings.@ Id. at 183 (emphasis in original).
Consequently, the court held that medical certificates described in
sections 574.009 and 574.011 are not required to be on file prior to a
hearing under the former article 46.03 section 4(d)(5) because they were not
pertinent to conducting the commitment hearing. Id. at 183. The court
explained that this requirement made sense in the context of civil commitment
because proceedings for court-ordered mental health services involve different
concerns and apply to a different class of individuals than proceedings
pursuant to former article 46.03 section 4(d)(5). Id. Former article
46.03 section 4(d)(5) applies to persons acquitted of a violent crime by
reason of insanity who have been previously committed to a state mental
hospital, and the proceedings are brought to determine whether those persons
should be released from their commitment. Id. In contrast, civil
commitment proceedings brought under the Mental Health Code apply to
individuals who have not been afforded the added protections
associated with a proceeding that resulted in acquittal by reason of insanity.
Id. Therefore, the Texas Supreme Court held that the
prerequisite of two medical certificates is not pertinent to conducting
the hearing pursuant to former article 46.03 section 4(d)(5). Id.
In this case, the State asks us to apply only those parts
of section 574.035 that section 574.066 expressly incorporates and completely
disregard the procedural and substantive requirements in subsections such as
subsection (g). However, following the Texas Supreme Court=s Campbell
decision, this court has recognized that section 574.035 is pertinent to
conducting a recommitment hearing pursuant to former article 46.03. Campbell
v. State, 118 S.W.3d 788, 802 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th
Dist.] 2003, no pet.); see also Evans v. Campbell, 130 S.W.3d 472,
484 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. dism'd) (stating Aarticle 46.03
section 4(d)(5) incorporates the requirements of section 574.035@).
We note that in the area of statutory construction, the
doctrine of stare decisis has its greatest force. Tooke v. City of Mexia,
197 S.W.3d 325, 342 (Tex. 2006). Therefore, we will follow our court=s precedent that
section 574.035 is pertinent to conducting a recommitment hearing. Evans,
130 S.W.3d at 484; Campbell, 118 S.W. 3d at 802. Moreover, under the
rules of statutory construction, we must consider the statute as a whole rather
than its isolated provisions. Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d
486, 493 (Tex. 2001) (citing Morrison v. Chan, 699 S.W.2d 205, 208
(Tex. 1985)). We should not give one provision a meaning out of harmony or
inconsistent with other provisions, although it might be susceptible to
such a construction standing alone. Id. (citing Barr v. Bernhard,
562 S.W.2d 844, 849 (Tex. 1978)). Accordingly, we hold that Mental
Health Code section 574.035, subsection (g) is applicable to recommitment
hearings under the former article 46.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
II. Certificates of Medical
Examination
In his second issue, appellant contends the trial
court=s order for
recommitment violates section 574.035(g), which requires the trial court's
findings to be based on evidence other than certificates of medical
examination for mental illness. We agree.
Section 574.035(g) provides, in part, that the trial court
may not make its findings solely from certificates of medical examination for
mental illness but shall hear testimony. Tex.
Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 574.035(g). The
reporter=s record from the
State=s case‑in‑chief
at the recommitment hearing is less than one page. The State offered no oral
testimony. The State offered only one exhibit which it described as follows:
I offer State=s Exhibit No.1 which is the
Physician=s Certificate for mental
examination and mental illness signed by David R. Baker, M.D.
Furthermore,
in the reporter=s record of the recommitment hearing,
the court reporter certified that the trial court admitted into evidence an
attached four‑page State=s Exhibit No.1, Awhich comprises all
of the medical evidence in said [h]earing.@ Therefore, the
only evidence the State introduced was a single, four‑page certificate
of medical examination for mental illness.
The form for such a certificate is set forth by
statute, which provides that the certificate Amust include the
detailed reason for each of the examining physician=s opinions under
[section 574.011].@ See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 574.035(e). To
fulfill these statutory requirements, Dr. Baker states in the certificate that
the factual basis for his opinions is Aset forth in
detail in the attached Exhibit >A= which is
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set out verbatim herein.@ The attached
affidavit is labeled Exhibit A, and it comprises two pages of the
State=s four‑paged
Exhibit No.1. Therefore, the incorporated document was part of the
medical certificate. It is not a distinct document and has no independent
significance. Although the State=s Exhibit No.1
contains two notarized signatures of Dr. Baker, these dual signatures do
not transform this single exhibit into two separate documents. Furthermore,
the State, the trial court, and the court reporter all treated these four
pages as a single document and a single exhibit. The record and the
unambiguous language of the State=s sole exhibit
show that the only evidence the State offered at the recommitment hearing was
one four‑page certificate of medical examination for mental illness.
The Legislature specifically prohibited the trial court
from basing its findings solely on certificates of medical examination for
mental illness. See Tex. Health
& Safety Code Ann. ' 574.035(g). Yet, the only evidence in the
record is a single certificate of medical examination for mental illness. The
court did not hear any expert testimony. Therefore, the evidence is legally
insufficient to support the trial court=s order. See
Whitaker v. State, Nos. 01‑03‑00576‑CV, 01‑03‑00577‑CV,
2003 WL 22413511, at *2 n.l (Tex. App.CHouston [1st
Dist.] Oct. 23, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating, as to a second commitment
order for a defendant who had been found incompetent to stand trial for
assault, trial court could not make its findings under applicable section
574.035 based solely on certificates of medical examination for mental
illness). We sustain appellant=s second 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 application for renewal of the prior order for extended
mental health services.
/s/ Charles W. Seymore
Justice
Judgment rendered and Opinion of
December 7, 2006 withdrawn and Substitute Opinion filed March 1, 2007.
Panel consists of Justices Hudson,
Frost and Seymore
In April 2006, the trial court released appellant
from inpatient care and signed an order for outpatient services.
However, under the collateral consequences exception, this appeal is not
moot. See Johnstone v. State, 22 S.W.3d 408, 409 n.l (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, 753B54 (Tex. App.CHouston
[14th Dist.] 2001), aff=d 85 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. 2002).
Furthermore, while appellant is receiving 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. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 46C.261 (Vernon Supp. 2006)). If appellant fails
to comply with his required Aregime 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.
See Tex.
Health & Safety Code Ann. '
574.009 (Vernon 2003); Tex. Health &
Safety Code Ann. ' 574.011 (Vernon 2003).