Taylor, Keith
WR-79,497-06
| Tex. App. | Mar 9, 2015Background
- Appellant Keith Taylor was committed to Rusk State Hospital under a Chapter 46B order (incompetency/forensic) dated October 27, 2014, and an application to authorize psychoactive medication was filed by Dr. Robert Lee on January 9, 2015.
- A bench hearing on January 13, 2015, produced testimony from Dr. Lee that Taylor refused medication, lacked capacity to decide about medication, had unpredictable/dangerous behavior (including a recent assault on another patient), and would likely be restored faster with medications.
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Taylor lacked capacity to decide about medication, presented a danger to himself or others in the facility, and that medication was in his best interest; the court granted the application under Tex. Health & Safety Code § 574.106.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders-style brief asserting no non-frivolous issues for appeal after reviewing the record; counsel invited response from the appellant.
- Taylor’s filings (and a letter from State Counsel for Offenders) raise related claims: counsel allegedly failed to investigate mental-health history before a plea, competency concerns at plea, and possible ineffective assistance; the plea hearing transcript was not available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly authorized forced administration of psychoactive medication under § 574.106 | Taylor (or appellant) argues medication order was involuntary and competency-related standards (Sell) should apply; counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue competency issues before plea | State contends evidence (Dr. Lee’s testimony) showed Taylor lacked capacity, was dangerous in the facility, and medication was in his best interest, so § 574.106 order was proper and Sell is not required where danger/non-health-risk purpose exists | Court concluded the order was supported: trial court permissibly relied on § 574.106 findings (danger + best interest), so forced medication authorization was proper; Sell standard not required when ordering medication to prevent danger or health risk |
| Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the court’s findings (lack of capacity, danger, best interest) | Taylor contends counsel and court should have recognized competency issues and evidentiary gaps (e.g., unclear criminal charge, missing plea transcript) | State points to Dr. Lee’s direct testimony (refusal, capacity, dangerous behavior, assault on another patient, placement on restrictive unit) as more than a scintilla supporting findings | Court held the State presented more than a scintilla on each required element; findings were not against the great weight of the evidence |
| Whether Sell v. United States governs because medication was sought to restore competency | Appellant asserts medication was used to restore competency from Section 46B context; thus Sell’s four-factor test should apply | State argues the trial court expressly found Taylor presented a danger and that treatment was in his best interest, invoking § 574.106 and cases permitting medication orders for safety/health reasons without full Sell analysis | Court treated Sell as relevant but not controlling given the trial court’s explicit danger/health-risk findings; Sell not required where medication is warranted to address danger or health risk |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate mental-health history or request competency evaluation before plea | Appellant alleges counsel did not investigate or obtain records showing medication cessation and competency problems prior to plea | Appellate counsel and record show counsel obtained a competency evaluation (Dr. Richard Coons found Taylor competent) and participated in the § 574.106 hearing; no showing of deficient performance or prejudice on the record | Court (via appellate counsel’s Anders brief) concluded no nonfrivolous ineffective-assistance claim apparent from the record and counsel’s assistance met reasonable standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural framework for appointed counsel to seek withdrawal when no nonfrivolous issues exist)
- Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (four-factor test for involuntary administration of antipsychotics to restore competency)
- United States v. Algere, 396 F. Supp. 2d 734 (E.D. La. 2005) (court must identify proposed medication and dosing range in Sell-type analysis)
- Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. 1965) (standard for factual sufficiency review)
- Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992) (appellate review presumes trial court resolved factual disputes in favor of judgment)
- In re Breeden, 4 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999) (discussing heightened evidentiary burdens in temporary commitment contexts)
- Johnstone v. State, 961 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997) (standards for sufficiency review in mental-health commitment/forensic contexts)
- The State of Texas for the Best Interest & Protection of C.O., 65 S.W.3d 175 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001) (no-evidence and factual-sufficiency principles applied to civil commitment/mental-health proceedings)