IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-SA-00987-SCT RALPH ARNOLD SMITH, JR.

v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND JAMES G. CHASTAIN, DIRECTOR OF THE MISSISSIPPI STATE HOSPITAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/11/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DENISE OW ENS TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: W I LLIAM CHARLES BELL BENNY McCALIP “MAC” MAY HAROLD EDW ARD PIZZETTA, III JOHN H. BARNETT, III COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: W I LLIAM CHARLES BELL ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BENNY McCALIP “MAC” MAY HAROLD EDW ARD PIZZETTA, III NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES DISPOSITION: DISMISSED AS MOOT - 11/09/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE RANDOLPH, P.J., MAX W ELL AND BEAM, JJ. MAX WELL, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Dr. Ralph A. Sm i th J r. was arrest e d a n d i n d icted in a m urder-f or-hire plot in 2012.
He was eventually c om m itted to t h e Mississippi State Hospital at W hitf i eld, where he has been treated f

o r m ental illness. Soon a f ter h is arrival at W h itf

iel d , t he f acility ’ s director

recom m ended D r. Sm i th’s illness required continual, involuntary trea t me n t and that heshould rem ain com m i tted at t he f acility

. Dr. Sm ith disagreed w i th t he recom m endation and has c ontested his com m itm ent to W hitf ield at e v ery s tep. Most r ecently , Dr. Sm ith f iled in Hinds County Chancery Court a habeas petition and m otion f or r elief f rom the chancellor’s ruling that ordered his continued inpatient t reatm e n t. D r . Sm ith argues he has been im p roperly conf

ined t o W hitf

ield and should be released im m ediate l y o r d ischarged to an outpatient f

a cility

. ¶2. The chancellor denied his petition and m otion f or relief

. And on a

ppeal, S m ith argues h i s habeas petition was wrongly denied and the Mississippi Departm e nt of Mental Healt h lacked standing to oppose his requests. But during the pendency of this appeal, Dr. Sm ith

was discharged f

rom W hitf

ield to an outpatient f

a cility

. S o t h e r e lief he requests in this appeal can no longer be granted by this Court. W e thus dism iss his appeal as m oot.
B ackground Facts and Procedural History ¶3. In 2012, Dr. Sm ith was arrested and i ndicted f o r c api t a l mu r d e r , c o n s p i r acy , and burglary

. In O ctober 2014, a Lef lore County Circuit Court judge d e c l a r e d D r. Sm ith i ncom p etent t o stand t rial. Based on this ruling, the Lef lore County District A t t o r n e y ’ s Of f ice f iled an af f idavit in chancery court to b egin c ivil-com m itm en t proceedings. Af ter

exam inations by a court-appointed phy s ician a nd p sy c hologist a n d two hearings, on January 16, 2 015, Special Chancel lor Hollis McGehee ordered D r. Sm ith to be com m itted to the Mississippi State Hospital at W hitf ield. ¶4. Soon af

ter his a r r i v a l a t W hitf

ield, Dr. Sm ith requested a hearing in Hinds County Chancery Court. The purpose of the hearing was to determ ine if continued com m i tm ent was

2necessary . 1 Chancellor Denise O wens appointed counsel f or Dr. Sm i th. She a lso assigned the hearing t o a special m aster. The hearing took place at W hitf ield on M arch 10, 2015. The special m as t e r heard t estim ony f rom a p hy sician and psy chologist, both em p loy ed at W h itf ie l d , t hat Dr. Sm ith needed continued “f orced treatm ent” f

or “a p ersistent m ental disorder.” The special m aster agreed that Dr. Sm ith’s continued treatm ent at W hitf ield was
necessary and was the least restrictive alternative. Based on the special m aster’s f indings, Judge Owens e ntered an order on March 10, 2015, continuing Dr. S m it h ’ s c o mmitm ent at W h itf ield. ¶5. On October 13, 2015, D r. Sm ith f i l e d a mo t i o n r e q u esting a hearing bef ore Judge Owens. He argued that W hitf ield’s director had not com pleted the six-m onth e xam ination required under M i ssissippi Code Section 41-21-99. 2 And he insisted he s hould b e released

1 In a related ap p eal, th e C o u rt o f A p p eals h e ld th a t M ississip p i C o d e S ectio n 4 1 -2 1

- 8 3 p lain ly states th a t w h en a p atien t is co m m itted to Wh itf ield , an y h earin g s u n d er S ectio n 4 1 -2 1 -7 4 (4 ) sh a ll b e h eld i n ch an cery co u rt f o r t h e F irst Ju d icial D istrict o f H in d s C o u n ty

. S ee S m ith v. S ta te , 2 0 1 5

- C A -1 4 7 1 -C O A , 2 0 1 7 WL 9 8 6 7 1 1 (M iss. C t. A p p . M arch 1 4 , 2 0 1 7 ).

2 S ectio n 4 1 -2 1 -9 9 states: T h e d irecto r sh all o b tain all th e av ailab le f acts relat iv e t o th e illn ess o f each p atien t ad m i tted to s a id treatm en t f acility . T h e d irecto r o r a p h y sician o n th e staf f o f said treat me n t f

a cility sh all, as o f

ten as p racticab le b u t n o t l ess f req u en tly th an ev e r y s ix (6 ) m o n th s, e x am in e th e p atien t an d rev iew th e reco rd s as to t h e n eed f

o r co n tin u ed treatm en t o f e a c h p a t i e n t an d m ak e th e resu lts o f su ch ex am in atio n a p art o f th e p atien t’s clin i cal reco rd

. T h e p atien t sh all h av e th e rig h t to req u est a h earin g a t least a n n u ally , p u rsu an t to S ectio n 4 1 -2 1 -8 3

. T h e p atien t sh all b e ad v ised o f h i s r ig h t to req u e st a h earin g an d o f h is rig h t to co n su lt an atto rn ey p rio r to h is d ecisio n co n cern in g w h e th er o r n o t to r eq u e st su c h h earin g , an d th e f act t h at th e p atien t h a s b een so ad v ised sh all b e d o cu m en ted in th e clin ical reco rd

.
3fr o m W

hitf ield or discharged to an outpatient f acility

. The Mississippi Departm e nt of Mental Health (the Departm ent), through the Attorney General’s Of

f ice, responded that Dr. Sm ith had received his six-m onth exam i nation on May 8, 2015. They asserted the exam i nation was part of his clinical record. And t he next exam ination was scheduled f or Novem ber 7, 2015. ¶6. J u d g e O w e n s held hearings on Decem ber 4 and 18, 2015, and heard e x t e n s i v e testim o ny about Dr. Sm ith’s m ental condition. Dr. Sm i th called his w i f e, a counselor f

rom Hinds Behavioral Health Services, and a f orensic psy chologist f

r om W hitf

ield as witnesses. The gist of their testim ony w as t ha t o u t patient treatm ent was suf f icient both to treat Dr. Sm ith and to protect t he com m unity

. The Departm e nt d isagreed. W hitf ield’s chief f

orensic
psy c h iatrist testif

i ed that outpatient treatm ent was not suf f icient f o r Dr. Sm ith’s condition. ¶7. Af ter the Decem

ber 18, 2015, hearing, both Dr. Sm ith and the Departm ent s ubm itted proposed f

indings of f

a ct and conclusions of law. But on January 18, 2 016, bef o re Judge Owens issued her f

i nal decision, D r. Sm ith f

iled a habeas p etition in her court. The petition

nam ed the Departm ent and the director of W hitf ield as d ef endants. Dr. Sm ith argued he was being unlawf

ull y d e t a i n ed at W hitf

ield. He sought im m ediate release or discharge to an outpatient f

a cility

. ¶8. By February 1, 2016, Judge Owens entered her opinion and o rder o n Dr. Sm ith’s sixmonth hearing m otion. Af ter weighing the evidence, she w as unconvinced outpati e n t
treatm ent was, at t hat tim e, suf f icient to t reat Dr. Sm ith. S o she ordered he rem ain com m itted
to W hitf ield.

M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -2 1 -9 9 (R ev . 2 0 1 3 ). 4¶9. Dr. Sm ith responded by f iling an am e n ded habeas petition and m otion f or relief f rom the chancellor’s order. O ne of his argum ents was that the Depa r tm ent lacked standing to
oppose his release or request f or outpatient treatm ent. The chancellor heard argum ents on Dr. Sm i t h ’ s h a b eas petition a nd m otion f or relief

. A nd the parties s u

bm itted proposed f indings of

f act and conclusions of

law. ¶10. Af ter considering each party ’s testim ony and f ilings, Judge Owens i ssued an opinion and o rder on July 11, 2 016. S he rejected Dr. Sm ith’s argum ents that ( 1) the D epartm ent lacked standing to p a rticipate in the proceedings, ( 2) the c o u r t h a d no authority to civilly

com m it Dr. Sm ith, and (3) he was receiving im proper or unlicensed treatm ent at W hitf ield. She f ound Dr. Sm i th h ad waived any objection to the Departm ent’s participation by waiting

to challenge standing “until af ter signif icant p roceedings” had taken place. And even absent waiver, Mississippi’s liberal standing requirem ents allowed the Departm ent to participate in the pro c e edings. Further, Judge Owens f ound the Departm ent had standing because Dr. Sm ith chose to nam e it as a def e ndant. ¶11. Dr. Sm ith now appeals to this Court. He claim s J udge Owens erred by (1) f inding the Departm ent had standing to participate in com m i tm ent proceedings and (2) w rongly deny ing his h abeas petition. D r. S m i th f iled a related appeal, Sm i t h v . State , 2015-CA-1163-SCT, in which this Court af

f i rm ed in a per c uriam opinion dated August 24, 2017. The parties supplem ented the record and provided supplem ental brief s in that appeal. ¶12. It was e stablished in Sm i th v. State , 2 015-CA-1163-SCT, that Dr. Sm i th is no longer in W hitf i eld. J u dge Owens ordered Dr. Sm ith to be discharg ed to Pine Grove Behavioral

5Health and Addiction S ervices (Pine Grove) f o r a “step-down” p rogram where Dr. Sm ith

w o u l d f irst be conf

ined to involuntary inpatient t reatm ent at Pine Grove and eve n t u a l l y transition to treatm e nt a s an outpatient. She based her decision on a July 31, 2 016, “ Forensic Risk Evaluation” conducted on Dr. Sm ith by D. Clay Kelly Jr. and Gina Manguno-Mire of the T ulane University School of Medicine, Departm e nt of Psy c h i a t r y and Behavioral Sciences. Citing this evaluation , t h e c h ancellor f ound treatm ent a t Pine Grove was a “suitable, less restrictive alternative” to W hitf ield. Dr. Sm ith acknowledged his discharge f rom W hitf

i eld in his supplem ental brief in Sm ith v. State , 2015-CA-1163-SCT. Since Dr. Sm ith is now in a treatm ent pro g r a m a t Pine Grove, his requests to be released f rom W h itf ield or be discharged to another treatm ent f acility are now m oot. Conclusion ¶13. Because the relief Dr. S m i th requests is now m oot, n o r e l i e f c a n b e granted by this Court. ¶14. DISMISSED AS MOOT. WALLER, C.J., RA N D O L P H AND KITCHENS, P.JJ., KING, BEAM, C H A M B E R L I N A N D I S H E E , J J . , C O N C U R . C O L E M A N , J . , N O T PARTICIPATING.

6