COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00371-CV

IN THE MATTER OF L.W.

----------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WICHITA COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 38890-L

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant L.W. appeals the trial court’s order granting the State’s 

application for the forced administration of psychoactive medication to her. We 

reverse the order and render a judgment denying the application.

On November 6, 2014, the State filed an application under section 574.104 

of the health and safety code2 for the forced administration of psychoactive 

medication to appellant. The application alleged that appellant was under a court 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2

See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 574.104 (West 2010).
2

order for inpatient mental health services that the trial court had issued in 

October 2014. Appellant sought a jury trial on the application, but the trial court 

found that she was not entitled to one and set a bench trial.

After the trial,3 on November 18, 2014, the trial court entered an order 

granting the State’s application. The court found, in part, that appellant was 

“under a court order to receive inpatient mental health services.” The court 

authorized the administration of antipsychotics and decreed that the order would 

“expire[] upon the . . . termination of the court ordered temporary or extended 

mental health commitment.” Appellant brought this appeal.

In her brief on appeal, appellant raises three issues: the trial court erred 

by denying her request for a jury trial, the trial court violated her due process 

rights by not giving proper notice of the bench trial, and the evidence was legally 

and factually insufficient to support the order. We need not resolve these issues 

because the trial court’s order must be reversed on another basis. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 47.1; Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc. v. Abdel-Hafiz, 240 S.W.3d 524, 532 n.7 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g).

 3

Counsel represented appellant at the trial; appellant did not attend, 

contending that she had not received proper notice. The State called Dr. William 

Beatty, a psychiatrist at the North Texas State Hospital, to testify about the merits 

of the application. He said that psychoactive medication would help appellant be 

less delusional about the effects of blood-pressure medication, and he opined 

that without taking the blood-pressure medication, appellant could risk a stroke or 

a heart attack.
3

Subchapter G of chapter 574 of the health and safety code applies to the 

“application of medication to a patient subject to a court order for mental health 

services.” Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 574.102 (West Supp. 2014). 

Section 574.106 of that code, under which the trial court issued the order here, 

states, in relevant part, that a court may “issue an order authorizing the 

administration of one or more classes of psychoactive medication to a patient 

who . . . is under a court order to receive inpatient mental health services.” Id.

§ 574.106(a)(1) (West 2010); see id. § 574.110(a) (West Supp. 2014) (“[A]n 

order issued under Section 574.106 expires on the expiration or termination date 

of the order for temporary or extended mental health services in effect when the 

order for psychoactive medication is issued.”).

The trial court found that appellant was under a court order to receive 

inpatient mental health services. But in a related appeal, we have reversed the 

trial court’s order for inpatient mental health services and have ordered a new 

trial on that issue. See In re L.W., No. 02-14-00338-CV, 2015 WL 135571, at *5

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth January 9, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).4

Without an existing, valid temporary order for inpatient mental health 

services, the trial court’s order authorizing the forced administration of 

psychoactive medication cannot stand and must expire. See Tex. Health & 

 4

We take judicial notice of the proceedings in the related appeal. See 

Ex parte Joyner, 367 S.W.3d 737, 738 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no 

pet.) (“An appellate court may take judicial notice of its own records in a related 

proceeding involving the same or nearly the same parties.”).
4

Safety Code Ann. §§ 574.106(a)(1), .110(a); State ex rel. R.J.R., No. 06-13-

00054-CV, 2013 WL 3421942, at *7 (Tex. App.—Texarkana July 3, 2013, no 

pet.) (mem. op.) (“Because we reverse the trial court’s order for inpatient mental 

health services, R.J.R. is not under a court order to receive mental health 

services. Therefore, the order authorizing the administration of psychoactive 

medication is invalid.”); State ex rel. R.G., No. 06-05-00148-CV, 2006 WL 

240551, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Feb. 2, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding 

similarly). Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order authorizing the 

administration of psychoactive medication and render a judgment denying the 

State’s application.5

/s/ Terrie Livingston

TERRIE LIVINGSTON

CHIEF JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; WALKER and GABRIEL, JJ.

GABRIEL, J., dissents without opinion.

DELIVERED: January 15, 2015

 5

We do not intend to preclude the State from filing another application for 

the administration of psychoactive medication under section 574.104, should new 

circumstances warrant it. Trial on a new application could be considered 

together with the new trial that we have ordered on the application for inpatient 

mental health services. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 574.104(d).

Also, our opinion does not foreclose the possibility of continued 

administration of such medication to appellant under other applicable law. See,

e.g., 25 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 414.403(9), .407(1), .410(a), (f) (2014).