NO. 12-20-00263-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE

BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION

OF K.M.B.

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal of the trial court’s order that psychoactive medication be involuntarily 

administered to Appellant, K.M.B. Appellant’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 the trial court’s judgment.

BACKGROUND

Appellant is a patient at Rusk State Hospital (“RSH”) pursuant to an order for in-patient 

mental health services. On November 16, 2020, an application was filed for court-ordered 

administration of psychoactive medication to Appellant, and on November 24, 2020, the trial court 

conducted an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

At the hearing, Appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Larry Hawkins, testified on behalf of 

the State. Dr. Hawkins testified that Appellant is under a court order for mental health services 

because she has been found to be incompetent to stand trial. Dr. Hawkins explained that he filed 

an application to administer psychoactive medication because Appellant suffers from delusional 

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 an 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.). We hold that the Anders procedure is also appropriate 

when court-appointed counsel concludes that an appeal from an order to administer psychoactive medication is 

frivolous. Cf. In re L.E.H., 228 S.W.3d at 220.
2

disorder, persecutory type, and she refused to take medication. According to Dr. Hawkins, 

Appellant lacks the capacity to make a decision regarding the medication. Dr. Hawkins testified 

that Appellant does not believe she has a mental illness, and that Appellant believes the charges 

against her are false, she is erroneously hospitalized, and she should not be required to take any 

medication. Dr. Hawkins explained that Appellant is facing charges of burglary and criminal 

mischief, and he opined that Appellant’s refusal to take medication puts her “at risk of not being 

restored to competency.” 

Dr. Hawkins discussed the exhibit attached to the application, which sets forth the 

classifications of medications he wished to administer to Appellant. According to Dr. Hawkins, 

the medications constitute the proper course of treatment for Appellant and are in her best interest. 

Dr. Hawkins stated that the benefits of using the medications outweigh the risks associated with 

them. Dr. Hawkins also testified that Appellant would regain competency faster if the medications 

are administered to her, and he explained that if the medications interfered with Appellant’s ability 

to consult with her attorney about her underlying criminal charges, he would remedy the problem 

by changing the medication, reducing the dose, and treating any side effects.

During cross-examination, Dr. Hawkins testified that Appellant would not provide much 

medical history during her interview, and Appellant has delusions about people abusing her 

children. According to Dr. Hawkins, Appellant’s delusions render her unable to “actually work 

with someone to deal with her charges in a rational way.” Dr. Hawkins testified that Appellant 

made demands and threats during his conversation with her. Dr. Hawkins explained that the nature 

of Appellant’s disorder “does not lend itself to any kind of therapy,” and he opined that medication 

is the only treatment that will help Appellant achieve competency. According to Dr. Hawkins, 

Appellant did not express any religious or constitutional objections to taking the medication. 

Appellant testified that she disagrees with Dr. Hawkins’s diagnosis of her condition and

his assessment regarding her need for medication. Appellant explained that she believes she has 

sufficient mental capacity to confront the criminal charges pending against her. According to 

Appellant, Dr. Hawkins “accused” her of a certain diagnosis without having her full history, and 

Appellant stated that Dr. Hawkins “was very judgmental” and “very biased” during her first 

meeting with him. Appellant testified to telling Dr. Hawkins that he has “incorrect court orders[,]” 

and she explained that she asked to be released from RSH. Appellant testified, “they’re trying to 

slap me with a quick diagnosis of delusional.” According to Appellant, “CPS” had deleted records 
3

in a case involving her children. Appellant testified that some of her pending criminal charges 

have been dismissed, but she could not confirm that the charges had been dismissed because RSH 

had refused to allow her “any sort of internet access.”

On November 24, 2020, the trial court signed an order granting the application for 

administration of psychoactive medication. In its order, the court found that K.M.B. lacked the 

capacity to make a decision regarding administration of psychoactive medication and the

medication was in her best interest. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

K.M.B.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. 

State. In the brief, counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the 

opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and there is no error upon which an appeal can 

be predicated. Counsel 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), the brief presents a chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and 

states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.2 We have reviewed the record 

for reversible error and have found none.

CONCLUSION

Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 

407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion with the case for 

consideration on the merits. However, despite our having found no reversible error, we deny

counsel’s request to withdraw. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016). The Texas 

Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel in suits seeking the termination of parental rights

extends to “all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for 

review.” Id. at 27. After disposition by the Court of Appeals, an appeal of an order to administer 

psychoactive medication is made to the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 

ANN. §§ 574.070(e), 574.108(a) (West 2017). Accordingly, applying In re P.M. to the 

2 Appellant’s counsel provided her with a copy of the brief, notified her of his motion to withdraw as counsel, 

informed her of her right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate her review of the appellate 

record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file her own 

brief. The time for filing a pro se brief has expired, and no pro se brief has been filed. 
4

circumstances of this case, we conclude that counsel has not yet discharged his obligation to

Appellant. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; see also State for Best Interest & Prot. of M.R., 

No. 12-19-00228-CV, 2020 WL 500772, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 31, 2020, no pet.) (per 

curiam) (mem. op.). If, after consulting with counsel, Appellant wishes to file a petition for review, 

counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the 

standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 28; cf. A.C. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & 

Protective Servs., No. 03-16-00543-CV, 2016 WL 5874880, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 5, 

2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).

Opinion delivered September 15, 2021.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 15, 2021

NO. 12-20-00263-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST

INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF K.M.B.,

Appeal from the County Court at Law

of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 43066)

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.