The State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of M. T. v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-23-00260-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR § APPEAL FROM THE

THE BEST INTEREST AND § COUNTY COURT AT LAW

PROTECTION OF M. T. § CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

This is an appeal of the trial court’s order that psychoactive medication be involuntarily
administered to Appellant, M.T. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in compliance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous
v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). 1 We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant is a patient at Rusk State Hospital pursuant to an order for in-patient mental
health services. On September 27, 2023, an application was filed for court-ordered
administration of psychoactive medication to Appellant, and on October 3, the trial court
conducted an evidentiary hearing.

1
See In re State ex rel. Best Interest & Prot. of L.E.H., 228 S.W.3d 219, 220 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
2007, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedure is appropriate when court-appointed counsel concludes an appeal
from an involuntary commitment order is frivolous); see also In re T.R.G., No. 07-05-0179-CV, 2005 WL 2152915,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 7, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.). We hold that the Anders procedure is also
appropriate when court-appointed counsel concludes that an appeal from an order to administer psychoactive
medication is frivolous. Cf. In re L.E.H., 228 S.W.3d at 220.
At the hearing, Appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Robert Lee, testified on behalf of the
State. Dr. Lee testified that Appellant is under a court order for mental health services, having
been found incompetent to stand trial on pending charges of aggravated sexual assault of a child,
kidnapping, and forced prostitution. Dr. Lee explained that he filed an application to administer
psychoactive medication because Appellant suffers from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type,
and Appellant refused to voluntarily take a specific antipsychotic medication. Dr. Lee stated that
Appellant refused to take the medication because Appellant believed he was involved with
various government agencies, including the FBI, and further did not believe he was delusional.
Moreover, Appellant exhibited aggressive behavior toward both his peers and hospital staff.
According to Dr. Lee, Appellant lacks the capacity to make rational decisions related to
medication.
Dr. Lee discussed the exhibit attached to the application, which sets forth the
classifications of medications he wished to administer to Appellant. According to Dr. Lee, the
medications constitute the proper course of treatment for Appellant and are in his best interest,
and there are no less intrusive alternative treatment protocols available. Additionally, Dr. Lee
explained that the benefits of using the medications outweigh the risks associated with them.
Administering the medications would allow Appellant to regain competency faster and would
not interfere with Appellant’s ability to confer with his attorney. However, without the
medications, Appellant could suffer mental deterioration and become a danger to himself and
others. Dr. Lee testified that Appellant initially agreed to switch to the currently prescribed
medication, but in the future, if Appellant was adamant that the medication was causing side
effects, he would consider prescribing other medication.
Appellant testified that he never refused his medication. However, he objected to taking
one specific antipsychotic medication because it “bothers” his genitals, impedes his speech, and
he is not delusional. Appellant explained that the accusations that he is delusional stem from his
inability to produce evidence of his claimed military background and assignments with the CIA.
Appellant further admitted that he spit at a member of the hospital staff, claiming that she falsely
reported that he was not taking his medication.
On October 3, the trial court signed an order granting the application for administration
of psychoactive medication. In its order, the trial court found that M.T. lacks the capacity to

2
make a decision regarding administration of psychoactive medication and that the medication is
in his best interest. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

M.T.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. In the brief, counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and there is no error upon which an appeal can
be predicated. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), the brief presents a chronological summary of the procedural
history of the case and states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 2 We
reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

CONCLUSION

Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion with the case for
consideration on the merits. However, despite our having found no reversible error, we deny
counsel’s request to withdraw. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016). The Texas
Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel in suits seeking the termination of parental
rights extends to “all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition
for review.” Id. at 27. After disposition by the Court of Appeals, an appeal of an order to
administer psychoactive medication is made to the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 574.070(e), 574.108(a) (West 2023). Accordingly, applying In re P.M.
to the circumstances of this case, we conclude that counsel has not yet discharged his obligation
to Appellant. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; see also State for Best Interest & Prot. of M.R.,
No. 12-19-00228-CV, 2020 WL 500772, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 31, 2020, no pet.) (per
curiam) (mem. op.). If, after consulting with counsel, Appellant wishes to file a petition for
review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that
satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 28; cf. A.C. v. Tex. Dep’t

2
Appellant’s counsel provided him with a copy of the brief, notified him of his motion to withdraw as
counsel, informed him of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate his review of the
appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file
his own brief. The time for filing a pro se brief expired, and no pro se brief has been filed.

3
of Family & Protective Servs., No. 03-16-00543-CV, 2016 WL 5874880, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—
Austin Oct. 5, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 43.2(a).
Opinion delivered January 31, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

4
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 31, 2024

NO. 12-23-00260-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF M. T.

Appeal from the County Court at Law
of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 43580)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

5