NO. 12-18-00077-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE 

BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION

OF J. W.

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This is an accelerated appeal of a trial court’s judgment involuntarily committing J.W. for 

temporary mental health services and ordering the administration of psychoactive medication to 

him. J.W.’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1969).1 We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On March 16, 2018, an application was filed for court-ordered temporary mental health 

services with regard to J.W. On March 20, 2018, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing 

on the matter. Following the hearing, the trial court found that there is clear and convincing 

evidence that J.W. (1) is likely to cause serious harm to others, (2) is suffering severe and abnormal 

mental, emotional, or physical distress, (3) is experiencing substantial mental or physical 

deterioration of his ability to function independently, which is exhibited by his inability, except 

 

1

 See In re State ex rel. Best Interest & Prot. of L.E.H., 228 S.W.3d 219, 220 (Tex. App–San Antonio 2007, 

no pet.) (concluding that Anders procedure is appropriate when court-appointed counsel concludes an appeal from 

involuntary commitment order is frivolous); see also In re T.R.G., No. 07–05–0179–CV, 2005 WL 2152915, at *1

(Tex. App.–Amarillo Sept.7, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re E.M., No. 

03-96-00703-CV, 1997 WL 217186, at *2 (Tex. App.–Austin May 1, 1997, no writ) (op., not designated for 

publication). We conclude that the Anders procedure also is appropriate when court-appointed counsel concludes an 

appeal from an order to administer psychoactive medication is frivolous. Cf. In re L.E.H., 228 S.W.3d at 220.
2

for reasons of indigence, to provide for his basic needs, including food, clothing, health, or safety, 

and (4) is unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether to submit to treatment. 

As a result, the trial court rendered a written order committing J.W. for temporary inpatient mental 

health services for a period up to forty-five days, but not to exceed ninety days.2

That same day, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on J.W.’s treating physician’s 

application for administration of psychoactive medication to J.W. Thereafter, the trial court found 

that the allegations made in the application are “true and correct and are supported by clear and 

convincing evidence,” treatment with the proposed medication is in J.W.’s best interest, and J.W. 

lacks the capacity to make a decision regarding administration of the medication. As a result, the 

trial court granted the application and rendered an order for administration of psychoactive 

medication to J.W. This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

J.W.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. 

In it, he states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record 

reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He 

further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, 

Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), J.W’s brief 

presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and states that his counsel 

is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.3 We likewise reviewed the record for reversible 

error and have found none.

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), J.W.’s counsel 

moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 

 

2 At the hearing, the trial court pronounced the term of J.W.’s commitment as a period “not to exceed 

[forty-five] days.” However, a written order controls over a trial court’s oral pronouncement when there is an 

inconsistency. See In re A.S.G., 345 S.W.3d 443, 448 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2011, no pet.).

3

In compliance with Kelly v. State, J.W.’s counsel provided J.W. with a copy of the brief, notified J.W. of 

his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed J.W. of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to 

facilitate J.W.’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). J.W.

was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.
3

2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done 

so and finding no reversible error, we grant J.W.’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and 

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

As a result of our disposition of this case, J.W.’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of 

the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to J.W. and advise him of his 

right to file a petition for review. Cf. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 

n.35. Should J.W. wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Supreme Court, he must either 

retain an attorney to file a petition for review on his behalf or he must file a petition for review pro 

se. Any petition for review must be filed within forty-five days from the date of either this opinion 

or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 53.7. 

Any petition for review must be filed with the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 53.1. 

Any petition for review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 53.2. Cf. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered September 19, 2018.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 19, 2018

NO. 12-18-00077-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST

INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF J. W.

Appeal from the County Court at Law 

of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 42,336)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.