in the Matter of L. A. T., 05-15-00043-CV

Appellant (L.A.T.) was tried for capital murder, acquitted by reason of insanity, and committed to a maximum-security mental health facility; later released to outpatient treatment.
The State annually sought renewal of court-ordered outpatient supervision under former art. 46.03 and the Mental Health Code procedures applicable to offenses committed before Sept. 1, 2005.
In 2013 the trial court reduced appellant’s supervision to psychiatrist visits every six weeks and monthly caseworker contact.
At the 2014 renewal hearing Dr. John Bennett testified appellant has schizoaffective disorder but is asymptomatic, has not taken medication since 2008, functions independently, is not dangerous, and no longer meets criteria for inpatient or outpatient treatment; he could not, however, guarantee no relapse.
The trial court nevertheless granted the State’s motion to renew outpatient treatment; appellant appealed arguing legal insufficiency of the evidence.
The Court of Appeals found the evidence legally insufficient under the Mental Health Code and reversed and rendered judgment releasing appellant from court-ordered mental health services effective immediately.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was legally sufficient to renew court-ordered outpatient treatment under the Mental Health Code	State: renewal appropriate and trial court’s order should stand or case remanded for further proceedings	Appellant: evidence insufficient because expert testified she is asymptomatic, functioning independently, and no longer meets criteria for treatment	Court: Evidence legally insufficient; reversed and rendered immediate release
Whether remand (rather than rendition) is proper when evidence is insufficient	State: remand appropriate citing precedents and art. 46.03 language that discharge is by committing court	Appellant: Court should render judgment because sufficiency failure requires rendition under appellate rules	Court: Rendition required under Tex. R. App. P. 43.3 and precedents; remand unnecessary

Roland v. State, 973 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1998) (remand where hearing was untimely)
Harrison v. State, 239 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007) (remand for denial of jury trial in recommitment proceeding)
Campbell v. State, 118 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (remand for procedural error affecting jury question)
In the Interest of J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (appellate rendition generally required when evidence is legally insufficient)
State ex rel. D.L.S., 446 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014) (reversal and rendition appropriate on legal sufficiency grounds)
In re D.F.R., 945 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (reversing and rendering when no evidence supported involuntary commitment)
Khateeb v. State, 712 S.W.2d 881 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986) (reversing and rendering where State failed to show clear and convincing evidence for commitment)