Opinion ID: 195289
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of the Conditions.

Text: 14 The threshold question is whether inpatient treatment falls within the scope of the probation order. We believe that the conditions of probation definitely encompass such treatment. 15 The probation order states that appellant must continue to submit to proper psychiatric treatment, inclusive of medication,.... We are confident that this broadly phrased directive, read naturally and with due regard for context, covers inpatient care. After all, the sentencing judge attached no qualifiers or words of limitation to the requirement of treatment, other than that the treatment be proper and psychiatric. And in terms of language, we deem it significant that the condition directs that appellant continue to submit to proper psychiatric treatment.... (Emphasis supplied.) When this verb usage is examined against the backdrop of the immediately preceding condition, which memorializes that appellant shall be confined to St. Elizabeth's Hospital for his initial treatment, 5 continuation of that treatment cannot fairly be read to exclude further hospitalization. And, moreover, an expansive reading is especially compelling in light of the incurable nature of appellant's illness and his previous three-year stay in a psychiatric hospital. 16 We think, too, that the circumstances surrounding the probation order necessitate such an interpretation. The plea agreement commemorated appellant's understanding that he would have to report on a regular basis to a mental health physician chosen by the government and follow the doctor's instructions unless excused by an order of the Court. Thus, the plea agreement made pellucid that appropriate medical care lay at the heart of the agreed disposition of appellant's case--and hospitalization is a mainstay of appropriate medical care. Moreover, the probationary period was to last for five years; during so lengthy a span, it was certainly foreseeable that appellant's medical needs might evolve in such a way as to require rehospitalization. Put bluntly, inpatient care, having proved necessary in the past, was well within the universe of treatment modalities that might prove proper in the future. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, it is beyond serious question that the words proper psychiatric treatment were intended to include--and did include--the possibility of hospitalization. Consequently, we reject appellant's complaint that the conditions attached to his probation did not require submission to inpatient medical care. 18