The State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of T.R.G.--Appeal from County Court of Randall County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-05-0179-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
SEPTEMBER 7, 2005
______________________________
THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST
AND PROTECTION OF T.R.G.
_________________________________
FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;
NO. 2005-M-055; HON. JAMES ANDERSON, PRESIDING
_________________________________
Memorandum Opinion
_________________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order involuntarily committing T.R.G. (appellant) to North
Texas State Hospital in Wichita Falls, Texas, for no more than 365 days. He was so
committed to receive extended mental health services. His appointed appellate counsel
moved to withdraw and filed an Anders1 brief in conjunction with that motion. In the brief,
counsel represents that, after conducting a diligent search, he found no meritorious issues
warranting appeal. Along with his brief, appellate counsel sent appellant a letter informing
him of his conclusions and his right to file a pro se response. We too informed appellant,
by letter, of his right to file a pro se response, and one was received by the court from him.
Several supplemental responses were also forwarded to this court.
1
However, the
An ders v. Ca lifornia, 386 U .S. 738, 744-45 , 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ( 1967).
comments in the pro se responses are generally incomprehensible and sometimes profane.
They also fail to illustrate that the trial court erred in any way or that appellant’s
commitment was and is unlawful.
Next, in compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
illustrates why the appeal lacks merit. His first issue involves whether Anders even applies
to an appeal from a commitment proceeding, and he concludes that it does. We agree with
that determination. See In the Matter of E.M, No. 03-96-00703-CV, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS
2511(Tex. App.–Austin May 1, 1997, no writ) (unpublished) (applying Anders in an appeal
from a commitment order).
Next, counsel discusses two potential areas for error. The first concerns the
confrontation clause of the United States Constitution and whether it was violated when the
trial court permitted a witness to testify via the telephone. The second involves the
effective assistance of counsel when he withheld objection to the decision allowing
testimony to be received over the phone. Each issue was then shown to be baseless. For
instance, trial counsel was given leave to cross-examine and actually questioned the
witness over the telephone. So, appellant’s opportunity to test the comments of the witness
was preserved in this instance. Additionally, appellant says nothing about being unable to
broach or investigate any particular subject due to the procedure utilized. And, because
appellant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and actually did so, withholding
objection to the procedure did not render trial counsel ineffective. We agree.
In addition to reading the Anders brief and appellant's pro se response, we also
reviewed the record, sua sponte, as required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991). Our review of it disclosed no arguable error warranting reversal.
2
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the order committing appellant
to North Texas State Hospital not to exceed 365 days is affirmed.
Per Curiam
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
