The State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of P.H., as a Mentally Ill Person--Appeal from Probate Court No 1 of Bexar County

Share |
Download as PDF
Loading PDF...
MEMORANDUM OPINION Nos. 04-10-00448-CV & 04-10-00449-CV THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF P.H., as a Mentally Ill Person From the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2010-MH-1213 & 2010-MH-1265 Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, 1 Judge Presiding Opinion by: Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 29, 2010 AFFIRMED P.H. appeals the trial court’s judgments involuntarily committing her for temporary mental health services and compelling the administration of psychoactive medication. P.H.’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); The State of Texas for the Best Interest & Protection of L.E.H., Jr., 228 S.W.3d 219, 220-21 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, no pet.) (holding Anders procedure is appropriately applied when court-appointed counsel concludes an appeal of an involuntary commitment order is frivolous). Counsel concludes that The Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, presiding judge of Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas, signed the following judgments: “Judgment—Court-Ordered Temporary Mental Health Services” and “Order to Compel Psychoactive Medications”; however, the Honorable Oscar J. Kazen, Associate Probate Judge, Bexar County, Texas, conducted the hearing and ruled on the motions. 1 04-10-00448-CV & 04-10-00449-CV the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided P.H. with a copy of the brief and informed her of her right to review the record and file her own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). This court issued an order informing P.H. of her right to file a pro se brief; however, P.H. did not file a brief. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. Appellate counsel’s motions to withdraw are granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice -2-