WR"W}W?~OS
fZ/ /?/l@/@ 7%§/1/ a fde Mo}L/ZAS,' S/;VC e_//D~J?~ <>'20_/‘/)_7%: c/€é/¢MHA/?-L%a§ 退/\)/U/Jc€c/¢z% 7%§ /@/5/
/1 5///% wax dwd/F &F%/$’ fom/chwcy% /JSc/<:c
W'€” 177/ 777»0¢;, GROUND /O ' ` (}////>@ ,0/66 was //1/ )//)/M/\/faj/ 79 becaw 36 69de
L{/a$ //1/6/"/6677/6§ /‘Y/‘ /U@?L /”6§;¢/ 657/§§ /'0/72,0676/0606~2”/1/§¢//}”/
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND:
7@/2/ 666/1256/§ Aac/ 6/6/ /vc)S/L/f 616/aa 66/ F f 60@§676/1/¢'6 62 U/ F/c%a/M 605/us /’M/a/ é/s /’6 po/fM/¢S /556 60/- /7 -/3 @?0//) amc/572 /6@/ 7%@7‘ 765 @é/g/.»@/@¢ M y p/Cg@w// @@myezé/w 76 5%6/1/6/ //’/6/ ié 6/50 %7605 7%67¢ f/ 6 6/6~ /@/u@éw?§ /776%/667§6//¢/5 max mece$§a /Y /:3/” A//w 66 §/Wa//§?'?S//i/ 675 66/¢76767/6(//<7, 666»)5’6/ U/A/¢€ /M@ /YV&§)L/VQé?§a'/\) 011/76 6/5` 616/762/16§ /7761/7£1/%66//% 6672/6 f/A§ WHM/c/ 6 61 1/6 66 /66 F7L 6% 66/{/ /% 6 ;6///27604 _/66/ /6666/%’ 66 w@MQ/Adyf /£ZWM/duf 7%67£ 7%6 za//Ad!€/ 566/6 9/1/6/1/ 776 5/6~ ' F/¢/Q//w% %/5 /77/%/ 1%66660%/¢ /776/€@75@/1/§
W@~ 72 479 7 '~Oc,
;/§5/ /775/'6 766/v 6 /E¢:’/`w Mo/¢/,%AS, 5/72/6 6_//0;>?7~ n 520/92 776 ¢/@§/6667@§ 7€€/\»,5/¢@6/%7 740/6 /@/5/
gab /6//6, /% 076/665 /%46/46/ '%6> é%éw 64/67‘/2/@%6/0/6 666/1776/ 666 %/6 77/6/
/5///756/5 v 666/6 6/[%/5' 60//)4/6667/6; /JS¢J<:Q
'CAUSE No. 12-15-00016-€\/ co pv
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TWELFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS ` AT TYLER
THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF K.T.
On Appeal from Civil Cause No. 41 ,309 in the County Court At Law Of Cherokee County, Texas
Brief for Appellant
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
MOAK&KESLER,PLLC BY W%
318 Neches Street MicUR. Kesler Jacksonville, Texas 75766' ‘ SBN 24049074 ( 903) 589-7800 Attorney for Appellant,
(fax) 589-7833 Court Appointed
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the Justices of
this Honorable Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal.
Keith Taylor .................................................... Appellant/Patient
Michael Kesler ....................................... Court Appointed Trial Counsel
Michael R. Kesler ............... l .................. C ourt Appointed Appellate Counsel
Dana Young ..................................... Trial Counsel for The State of Texas
Trevor Rose ................................. Appellate Counsel for The State of Texas Respectfully submitted
Michael R. kesler § SBN 24049074
Attomey for Appellant, Court Appointed
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE oF INTERESTED PARTIEs .................................................. i TABLEoFCoNTENTs ..... ....................................... ii TABLE oF AUTHoRITlEs .................................................................. iii oPlNloNs BELoW .' ..... l ...................................................................... z JURISDICTION . . . .’ ........................................................................... z STATEMENT ON POINTS OF ERROR .............................................................. 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
I. NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING ............................................. 2
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS ............................................... _. . . 3 . SUMMARYOFTHEARGUMENT ...................... ............... 5 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY ....................... ' ........... ‘ ........................... 5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ...................................................................... 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................... _ ...... 11
ii
TABLE_OF AUTHORITIES CASES: United States Supreme Court
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) .................... _ .......... 2
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 178, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed. 2d 197 (2003) ............................... 5,6,7, 9
United States Appellate Court United States v. Algere, 396 F.Supp. 2d 734, 741 (E.D. La 2005) ................. 6 U.S. v. Leveck-Amirmokri, 2005 U.S Dist. Lexis 7610 *l 1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2005) 6 Texas Supreme Court Garza v. Alviar, 395 SW2d 821 (Tex. l965) ....................... - ........... 8
Holt Atherton Induslrz`es, Inc. v. Heine, 835 SW2d 80 (Tex. 1992) ................ 8
Texas Appellate Court
In Re Breeden, 4 SW3d 782, 785 (Tex. App. -San Antonio 1999, no writ) ....... l . . . 8 State of T exas for the Best lnterest and Protection ofC. O. , '
65 SW3d 175 (Tex. App. - Tyler 2001, no writ) .................. 8 State ex rel. F.B. 2007 Tex. App. Lexis 6058, *7 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2007) ........ 7, 9
Johnstone v. State, 961 SW2d 385 (Tex. App. - Houston [lSt District] 1997, ‘ no wril) ..... -. ............................................ 8
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:
Amendment 5 ..................................... 4 ............................ 5
TEXAS STATUTES:
Texas Health & 'Safely Code Art. 5 74. 070 ............................... ' ..... 2
Texas Health & Safety Code Art. 574. 104 ............... ' ..................... 5 Texas Health & Safety Code Art. 5 74. 106 ................................ 2, 6, 9 Chapter 46B, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure ............... , ................ 2, 3, 9
iii
CAUSE NO. 12-15-00016`-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TWELFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TYLER
THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF K. T.
On Appeal from Civil Cause No. 41 ,309 in the County Court At Law Of Cherokee County, Texas
Brief for Appellant
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Keith Taylor, Appellant in the above-styled and numbered cause and
Respondent in the Trial Court, and, by and through appointed Counsel, files this his Brief of
Appellant and respectfully reports to the Court of Appeals that no errors were found to have been
committed by the Trial Court relating to the rulings during trial in Cause Number 41,309 in the
County Court at LaW of Cherokee County, Texas, before the Honorable Judge Janice Stone, Judge
Presiding.
OPINIOl\lS BELOW
The Judgment of the Court for an Order to Administer Psychoactive Medication-Forensic
is set forth in the Clerk’S Record (Cl. R. 4). JURISDICTION
Appellant jurisdiction for this cause is properly before this Court pursuant to Texas Health
Safety Code Art. 574.106. STATEMENT OF POINTS OF ERROR
No points of error were found following review of the record and this brief is submitted in
compliance with Ana'ers v. Calij"ornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). I. NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING
This cause originated in the County Court at Law of Cherokee County, Texas. The patient was brought to Rusk State Hospital in Rusk,' Cherokee County, Texas under an order brought under Chapter 46B of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, dated October 27, 2014. (Cl.R. at 4); (R.R. at 4). On or about January 9, 2015, an Application for Order to Administer Psychoactive Medication-Forensic was filed by Robert Lee, M.D. (Cl.R. at 4). On January 13, 2015, a bench trial was initiated wherein the Court granted the Application (Cl. R. at 11); (R.R. at 14). Notice of Appeal was timely filed on or about January 20, 2015 (Cl. R. at 16). The Court Clerk’s Record (Cl. R.) and the Court Reporter’s Record (R.R.) were timely filed of record. Because of the nature
of the case, the appeal has been accelerated pursuant to Texas Health & Safety Code art. 574.070.
D/? goble/pf A@@, /:5 61
CJ(/F’€/?f'/}U /'?7'€-/\/7¢2//."/l///L/>,'€S§-v . . ; '
-§D‘" L‘i‘°- +'esh‘rr\@~/j md wharf //iw/»/)£/J§ w/Lev ¢/;»:.¢ Fé»/<"ja~f is /\/vf O/v mfa/11 v - Cmf/'a/\/$r
,P'S¢‘/ l
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS ,
Appellant is an adult male who, at the time of the filing of this appeal was a patient at the Texas Mental Health & Mental Retardation Facility in Rusk, Texas, also known as Rusk State Hospital (RSH), pursuant to an order dated October 27, 2014, under Chapter 46B of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. (Cl. R. at 4).
On January 13, 2015, a hearing on the Application for Order to Administer Psychoactive Medication-Forensic was held. (R. R. Vol. 1 of l).
The State called one witness, Dr. Robert Lee. (R. R. at 4). Dr. Lee testified that Appellant verbally refused medication, that Appellant lacked the capacity to make a decision regarding medication, that Appellant refused to speak to the doctor on most occasions with regard to his mental illness and/or treatment. (R. R. at 6-7). Dr. Lee also testified that Appellant was placed on a unit of the hospital reserved for individuals who are deemed to be dangerous after a review by the “Dangerous Review Board. (R. R. at 6-7). Dr. Lee then testified that Exhibit A, which is attached to the Application sets forth the classifications of medication which he wished to use on Appellant. (R.R. at 7). Dr. Lee also testified that the benefits of the medications outweighed the risks associated with them. (R.R. at 5).
Next, Dr. Lee testified that he was aware that Appellant was at RSH under an order for court-ordered mental health services pursuant to Article 46B of the Texas Code of `Criminal Procedure due to “[c]harges related to robbery.” (R.R. at 5-6). Dr. Lee testified that it was likely
that Appellant’s competency would be restored faster if he took the medications than without the
use of the mcdications. (R.R. at 7). Dr. Lee further testified that he believed the medications
would provide the least intrusive means for restoration of Appellant’s competency and that Appellant’s competency would likely not be restored without the use of medications (R.R. at 7- 8).
On cross-examination, Dr. Lee testified that Appellant had sporadically taken some medications and refused others. (R.R. at 9). Dr. Lee also testified that Appellant refused changes in dosages, refused to attend treatment team and often refused to allow the Med Clinic physicians to examine him for fear that they were reading his mind. (R. R. at 9-10). The Dr. also testified that Appellant had previously told the Dr. that he was depressed and would kill himself “one of v these days” if he was not treated, but that Appellant would also refuse to take an antidepressant. (R.R. at 9).
Appellant was then called to testify. (R. R. at 10). Appellant testified that he agreed with the Dr. That he needed to take medications, but Appellant maintained that he was “90 percent compliant with [his] medications.” (R. R. 11). Appellant also testified that he had previously d requested.increases of certain medications from the Dr. (R. R. At 11-12).
Dr. Lee was recalled by the State and asked about Appellant’s claims. (R. R. at 13). Dr. ' Lee testified that Appellant had actually refused a request to increase the medication which Appellant testified that he asked to be increased the previous week. (R. R. at 13). Dr. Lee also testified that Appellant had to be placed on one to one observation because of “unpredictable behavior” and that Appellant had also attacked another patient the previous Week. (R. R. at 13-14)
The trial court ultimately granted the Application for Administration of Psychoactive Medications. (R. R. at 14). In addition to the Couit’s finding that Appellant lacked the capacity
to make a decision regarding administering of medication and that said medication was in
Appellant’s best interest, the Court found that Appellant presented a danger to himself or others in the in the facility. (Cl. R. at 1'1). SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Following a review of the trial proceedings and judgment, no error, that was more than harmless error, was found that could be presented for review to the appellate court, and therefore, appointed counsel seeks to withdraw herefrom and has invited response hereto from the Appellant.
l ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY
Application
An Application for Order for Order to Administer Psychoactive Medication-Forensic was filed by Dr. Robert Lee M.D. Said application appears to signed by Dr. Lee and to be in the proper form and meet all requirements of such an application pursuant to Texas Health and Safety Code §574.104. (Cl. R. at 4). Standard of Review
The Federal (/iovernment may not deprive any person of liberty without due process of law. U. S. Const., Amdt. 5. An individual'has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs. Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 178, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed. 2d 197 (2003). However, the Government may administer antipsychotic drugs to a non-consenting defendant who is mentally ill and facing serious criminal charges in order to render that defendant competent to stand trial where the following circumstances exist: (1) there are important governmental interests at stake; (2) the involuntary medication will significantly further
those concomitant state interests; (3) the involuntary medication is necessary to further those
interests; and (4) the administration of the antipsychotic drugs are medically appropriate Sell, 539
U. S. at 179-82.
The first prong of the Sell standard requires that there be an important governmental interest ' at stake. Id. The Government generally has an important interest in bringing to trial an individual ' accused of a serious crime. Id. at 180. The United States Supreme Court has generally defined a serious offense as being any offense for which a defendant may be sentenced to more than six months imprisonment U.S. v. Leveck-Amirmokri, 2005 U.S Dist. Lexis 7610 *1 l (W.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2005). d
To satisfy the second prong of the Sell standard, the court must find that the involuntary medication will significantly further those interests. Sell, 539 U.S. at 181. lt must find that the administration of the drugs is substantially likely to render the defendant competent to stand trial and that the drugs are highly unlikely to have side effects that will interfere significantly with the defendant’s ability to assist counsel. Id. In United States v. Algere, the court held that to satisfy this element, the government must set forth the particular medication, including the dose range, it
proposes to administer to the defendant to restore his competency due to the evaluation of potential
~ side effects required by Sell. 396 F.Supp. 2d 734, 741 (E.D. La 2005).
Thirdly, the court must find that the involuntary medication is necessary to further those interests Sell, 539 U.S. at 181. To make this determination, the court must determine that any alternative, less intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve substantially the same result. Id.
Finally, the court must find the administration of the drugs to be “medically appropriate.” This means that the administration of the drugs is in the patient’s best medical interest in light of the patient’s medical condition. Id.
Section 574.106 of the Texas Health and Safety Code states:
(a) the court may issue an order authorizing the administration of one or more classes of psychoactive medication to a patient who: (l) is under a court order to receive inpatient mental health services; or (2) is in custody awaiting trial in a criminal proceeding and was ordered to receive inpatient mental health services in the six months preceding a hearing under this section. (a-l) The court may issue an order under`this section only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence after the ,hearing: (1) that the patient lacks the capacity to` make a decision regarding the administration of the proposed medication and treatment with the proposed medication is in the best interest of the patient; or (2) if the patient was ordered to receive inpatient mental health services by a criminal court1 with jurisdiction over the patient, that: (A) the patient presents a danger to the patient or others in the inpatient mental health facility in which the patient is being treated as a result of a mental disorder or mental defect as determined under section 574.1065; and (B) treatment with the proposed medication is in the best interest of the patient. lt is not necessary for a court to consider whether to allow forced medication to render a defendant competent to stand trial if the medication is warranted for a purpose such as rendering the defendant non-dangerous to himself or others or where the defendant’s refusal of drugs puts his health at risk. State ex rel. F.B. 2007 Tex. App. Lexis 6058, *7 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2007). Where no
evidence of such other purpose is presented, the court must apply the Sell standard. `Id. at *8.
Additionally, in reviewing a legal sufficiency or no evidence complaint, the appellate court must consider only the evidence and inferences that tend to support the challenged findings and disregard all evidence and inferences`to the contrary. Holt Atherlon Industries, Inc. v. Heine, 835 - SW2d 80, 84 (Tex. 1992); T he State ofTexas F or the Best Interest and Protection of C. O. ,65 SW3d _ 175, 178 (Tex. App. - Tyler, 2001 no writ). If there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the findings, the no evidence challenge fails. Id. However, in the context of the State’s heightened burden of proof in a temporary commitment case, a no evidence challenge Will be sustained if the evidence is insufficient to produce in the mind of the fact-finder a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the facts. Id; In Re Breeden, 4 SW3d 782, 785 (Tex. App. -San Antonio 1999, no writ); Johnstone v. State, 961 SW2d 385, 388 (Tex. App._ - Houston [lst Dist.] 1997, no writ_).
In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court must consider all the evidence and will set aside the judgment only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Garza v. Alviar, 395 SW2d 821, 823 (Tex. l965); The State of Texas F or the Best Interest and Protection of C. O. , 65 SW3d 175 (Tex. App. - Tyler, 2001 no writ). Without findings of fact and conclusions of law, the reviewing court must presume that the trial court resolved all questions of fact in support of the judgment Holt Atherton Induslries v. Heine, 835 SW2d supra at 83.
Bench Trial
A bench trial on the Application For Order to Administer Psychoactive Medication- Forensic was held on January 13, 2015. (R. R. Vol. 1 of l) The State relied on the Application and testimony of Dr. Lee to present its case. (R. R. at 4-10, 13-14). Following presentation of evidence
and arguments _ofcounsel, the trial court found that Appellant lacked the capacity to make a decision
regarding the administration of medication; that Appellant presented a danger to himself or others in the in-patient mental health facility; and that treatment with the proposed medication was in the best interest of the Appellant. (R. R. at 14; Cl. R. at 11).
A review of the evidence reflects that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the findings of the trial court. While the State presented evidence on each prong of the standard established in Sell, it is arguable that the State failed to establish an important governmental interest since the_only testimony on this item is that Appellant was at RSH under an order for court-ordered mental health services pursuant to Article 46B of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure due to “[c]harges related to robbery.” (R.R. at 5-6). lt is unclear exactly what charge Appellant was facing. Therefore, the testimony arguably did not clearly establish an important government interest.
Nevertheless, based on the findings of the trial court, the trial court was not'obligated to apply the standard established in Sell due to the trial court’s finding that Appellant presented a danger to himself or others. See Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 178, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed. 2d 197 (2003); and also, State ex rel. F.B. 2007 Tex. App. Lexis 6058, *7 (Tex. App§_Tyler 2007).
The trial court was within its discretion to enter the Order Authorizing Psychoactive Medication pursuant to Texas Health and Safety Code § 574.106 based on the testimony from Dr. Lee indicating the following: that Appellant was in custody awaiting trial in a criminal proceeding and was ordered to receive inpatient mental health services under Article 46B of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; that Appellant presented a danger to himself or others in the facility based
on thetestimony that Appellant was placed on MSU due to being deemed dangerous by the
“dangerous review board” and the testimony that Appellant had attacked another patient at the facility within the week; and that treatment with the proposed medication was in the best interest of Appellant. (R. R. at 6, 13) More than a scintilla of evidence was presented on each of these elements and the findings of the court were not so against the great weight of the evidence as to be manifestly unj ust. l Assistance of Counsel
Appellant was appointed counsel on January 9, 2015, which was the same date as the Application for Order to Administer Psychoactive Medication-Forensic was filed. Appellant’s counsel attended and participated in the bench trial, cross examined the State’s witness and examined Appellant. Reviewing the record in its entirety, counsel provided “reasonably effective assistance” to Appellant (Ex Parte Bratchett, 513 S.W. 2d 851, 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)), and there does not appear to be grounds for review for ineffective assistance of counsel. Surnm@:
Following review and consideration-of trial activities before the Trial Court, there are no points of reversible error found.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counsel for Appellant, Keith Taylor, respectfully requests and prays that this matter be considered by the Court and that appointed counsel be allowed to withdraw here form and that this appeal be dismissed following the Appellant’s opportunity to respond hereto; and further, Counsel respectfully requests and prays
for any and all other relief, at law or in equity, to which he may show himself justly entitled.
~10
Respectfully submitted,
Moak & Kesler, PLLC
M
Michael Kesler
State Bar No. 24049074 318 Neches Street Jacksonville, Texas 75766 Tel: (903) 589-7800
Fax: (903) 589-7833
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been served on the County Attomey for Cherokee County, Texas in accordance with
the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure on this the f f day of February, 2015.
z/%/i/
Michael R. Kesler
ll
No; 1/./¢ 302
l
THE srA'rE oF TExAs iN THE PROBATE couRT FoR THE BEsr iN'rEREsr coUNrY, TF.xAs AND PRori~:cTioN oi=
K. T.
(initiais only)
APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO ADMINISTER PSYCHOACTIVE MEDICATION - FORENSIC
Robert Lee .M.D./D.O. (“Applicant" , files this Application, pursuant to Texas Health & Safety Code §574.104, seeking an order to authorize the administration of psychoactive medication to Keith Ta lor (“Patient”) and respectfully shows that:
I.
Patient is subject to an order, date g / 17 20 _!é€ for court-ordered in-patient mental h th services issued under (select one): "
Chapter 463 (Incompetency to Stand 'l`i'ial) Code of Criminal Procedure m Chapter 46C (Not Guilty by Reason of lnsanity) Code of Criminal Procedure
m Chapter 55, Family Code H.
Applicant has diagnosed the Patient with the following condition(s): 1n <\,, rh.»<. .' s , mr 111/an w § c arc t`- al
III.
A list of medications within each class, as determined by the Texas Department of State Health S_ervices,' is attached hereto as Exhibit “A". Each medication the Applicant wants the court to
' compel the Patient to take is designated by an “X". 'I'he proposed method for administering the
medication is:
m/Oral D/lntramuscular g/Subcutaneously Masdermal
IV. EI/This is the customary method for administering the medication(s). I:l This 1s n_ot the customary method for administering the medication(s) The reason for using non-customary methods is
03/ll Puge l of 3 RSH 274-F
Application For Order 'l'o Administer Psychoactive Medication - Forensic (Conlinued)
V. 'IShYl>atient (select one): verbally, or [:l by other indication, refuses to take the medication voluntarily.
VI.
Applicant believes Patient lacks the capacity to make a decision regarding administration of psychoactive medication for the following reasons:
Paro/no»¢fl -lol-">¢`o"'\A abr~i'¢\= S vellt~tr»"\w\o\
'ma.'c-J< S+M/F Poor ms.'»}/L:’i' '/‘poo VJud§.L¢\_f/x‘f/ VII.
The applying physician has determined that the medication is the proper course of treatment for the Patient.
VIII.
Applicant believes that if Patient is treated with the class(es) of psychoactive medication specified in Paragraph III above, Patient's prognosis is:
FA: if
lX.
Applicant believes that if Patient is not administered the class(es) of psychoactive medication specified in Paragraph III above, the consequences will be:
merrill ii +er.~ 6 ,V,. f.'as/\
X. Applicant has considered medical alternative(s) to psychoactive medication to treatment of Patient and has determined that the medical alternatives will not be as effective as administration of psychoactive medication.
Xl.
Applicant believes that the benefits of the psychoactive medication outweigh the risks of such medication in relation to present medical treatment and best interest of the Patient.
03/1 1 ~ rage 2 ors RSH 274-F
Application For Order To Administer Psychoactive Medication - Forensic (Ccntinued)
' XlI.
Applicant has considered less intrusive treatments likely to secure Patient's agreementto take the psychoactive medication 1
XIII.
Alternatively, Applicant requests that should the court find that the Patient has the capacity to make a decision regarding administration of psychoactive medication that Applicant believes that Patient, unless medicated, presents a danger to self or others in the mental health facility in which patient is being treated, as set forth Texas Health & Safety Code §574.1065, and treatment
with the proposed medication is in the best interest of Patient.
WHEREFORE, Applicant request that the Court:
_ JNOUBH bill 3N33A31
l.. Appointan Attomey to represent Patient;
gi
a
2. Set a hearing on this Application to be held not later than the seventh ay this Application is tiled; . lists ` § 3. Direct the Court Coordinator of the tate Hospital, orS\er deliver a Notice of Hearing and copy of this Application to Patient imm`§diafé’§ time of the hearing is set;
Hv §- mr ruiz
')\lN till(l
‘° anoth 1103
ll )Al ?§s
Upon hearing, enter an order, pursuant to Texas Health & Safety Code §574.106, authorizing the Texas Department of State Health Services to administer the class(es) of psychoactive medication specified in Paragraph IIl of the Application to Patient,
regardless of Patient’s refusal.
DATE:@M.¢M \¢‘6, 20 _l_ §./ _
"\ lsic;NA'i'uRiz oi= PETITio
Sworn to and subscribed before me this f day of?£n{g%lo g
l cong ' / §ot§ Public, State ofTexas,
BA G. 2 ` ` '-1~» Noto`¢$£?di|»b\\c. State ottexes
omission expires mccoli 161 2018
03/1| Page 3 of3 RSH 274-F
03le
"` "W!'
“EXH|BIT A’
sees o Medications nan Used or la c |ndlcatlcns Consenl is required for any nedimtion that is used ln the treatment of a psychiatric diagnosis or symptom, whether or not the medication is included in this list Reler lo phys|dan order lot delennlnation ot indication for use. The classification of psychotropic medication ls lair|y standard but medications can be used lot treatment of llnesses that would be considered listed under a different classihcatlon. For example. some medications antipsydtotics maybe used as a mood stabilizer The Executive Foimulary Commlltee does endorse cl nonfonnulary drugs
El
El
Metadate
St
Mr. Keith Taylor, TDCJ lester IV Unit
4 lester Road Richmond, TX 77406
CONFIDENTIA Re: Status Update Mr. _Taylor:
l hope this letter f the telephone l am writ out to the Clerk of the l hearing was transcribed transcribed I was hopi showing the court and yc was questionable that c admonishments the court
My next step in l our agency to pursue yo we almost always refra because our office canr meeting the very high conference with our d availability After that forward on your behalf
ate C_ounsel for Offenders
A Dibision of Texas Department of Criminal Justice
` P.O. Box 4005 Huntsvi||e, TX 773424005 (936) 437-5203
August 28, 2013
#01784688
tL ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
inds you doing much better than the last time we spoke on ing to update you on my review of your claims. l reached jourt that convicted you to determine whether your plea by a court reporter. Unfortunately, the hearing was not ng there would be evidence from that day on the record ur attorney should have been aware that your competency lay. The Clerk did fax over the plea papers and the : gave you at the hearing
his process is to request permission from the director of ur claims for relief. Our resources are very limited, and in from raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims lot devote the necessary time, money, and resources to burden for success in those types of cases. l hope to irector within the next two weeks, depending on his l will be able to finally tell you whether l can move
lf you have additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me by writing to the address listed above. Please continue to keep SCFO informed if your address changes so we can keep you up to date.
Sincerely,
aero i,__
Jennifer J. Furrow Appellate Attomey