The State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of L.C.--Appeal from County Court at Law of Cherokee County

NO. 12-03-00401-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

  THE STATE OF TEXAS   ' APPEAL FROM THE

  FOR THE BEST INTEREST   ' COUNTY COURT AT LAW

  AND PROTECTION OF L.C.   ' CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant L.C. appeals from an order of commitment for temporary inpatient mental health

services. After a hearing without a jury, the trial court ordered L.C. committed to Rusk State Hospital for a period not to exceed ninety days. In four issues, L.C. asserts that her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection have been violated. We affirm.

Background

On October 30, 2003, an application for court-ordered temporary mental health services was filed requesting the court commit L.C. to Rusk State Hospital for a period not to exceed ninety days. The application was supported by a certificate of medical examination for mental illness, prepared by a physician, Dr. C. Cuellar, who had examined L.C. on October 29. Dr. Cuellar diagnosed L.C. as suffering from a psychotic disorder, NOS and bipolar disorder, NOS. Dr. Cuellar indicated that L.C. is mentally ill and likely to cause serious harm to herself. He based this opinion on L.C.=s admission of that day that she had present thoughts of suicide. Also, on October 28, she experienced auditory hallucinations and had a verbal fight with her mother. He also determined that L.C. presents a substantial risk of serious harm to herself or others if not immediately restrained, which is demonstrated by her behavior and by evidence of severe emotional distress and deterioration in her mental condition to the extent that she cannot remain at liberty. He based this opinion on the same facts.

On November 4, 2003, L.C. was examined by Dr. Charles Plyler who then also prepared a certificate of medical examination for mental illness. Dr. Plyler diagnosed L.C. as suffering from bipolar I disorder, depressed type, and indicated she has a borderline personality. He found that L.C. is mentally ill and is likely to cause serious harm to herself and others. The basis of his opinion was L.C.=s actions of October 28, at which time she attacked her mother, talked to unseen entities in her room, blacked out windows and spray painted the inside of her mother=s home. Dr. Plyler also determined that L.C. presents a substantial risk of serious harm to herself or others if not immediately restrained, an opinion he based on L.C.=s behavior and on evidence of severe emotional distress and deterioration in L.C.=s mental condition to the extent she cannot remain at liberty. Dr. Plyler based this opinion on the same behavior described above.

The State called no witnesses to testify at the hearing. It rested after entering the above documents into evidence. The defense presented no evidence. The trial court found that L.C. is mentally ill and is likely to cause serious harm to herself or others. The trial court entered an order reflecting these findings and ordering L.C. committed to Rusk State Hospital for inpatient care for a period not to exceed ninety days.

Constitutional Claims

In her first and second issues, L.C. contends the trial court erred in rendering judgment in violation of state and federal guarantees of due process. She asserts that certain terms found in section 574.034 of the Health and Safety Code are overly broad, vague, and ambiguous so the statute is susceptible to a variety of interpretations, making it violative of the due process clause of each constitution. In her third and fourth issues, she asserts that application of section 574.034 results in a violation of her right to equal protection under both the state and federal constitutions.

L.C. did not complain to the trial court that her state and federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection were being violated. A constitutional claim must have been asserted in the trial court to be raised on appeal. Dreyer v. Greene, 871 S.W.2d 697, 698 (Tex. 1993). Therefore, L.C. has not preserved these complaints for review. We overrule L.C.=s issues one, two, three, and four.

Conclusion

L.C.=s constitutional complaints have not been preserved and therefore present no error.

We affirm the trial court=s order of commitment for temporary inpatient mental health services.

SAM GRIFFITH

Justice

Opinion delivered April 30, 2004.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)