Holly, In re, 76543
| Decision Date | 06 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 76543,76543 |
| Parties | In re HOLLY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Robin S. Nash, Peachtree City, for appellant.
Jefferson J. Davis, Roberta H. Schulte, Decatur, for appellee.
A petition was filed by the Georgia Mental Health Institute (GMHI) pursuant to OCGA § 37-3-81 for a determination whether Rhonda Holly, an involuntary patient in the petitioning treatment facility, should be retained for involuntary treatment. After an evidentiary hearing in which Holly was represented by court-appointed counsel, the hearing officer appointed by the DeKalb County Probate Court found Holly met the statutory criteria requiring involuntary treatment as set out under OCGA § 37-3-1(12) and entered a retention order. Holly, still represented by counsel, appealed this order to the Superior Court of DeKalb County pursuant to OCGA §§ 37-3-150 and 5-3-2. After receiving and considering the evidence pursuant to a de novo investigation, OCGA § 5-3-29, the superior court found that Holly is mentally ill with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder manic type and borderline personality disorder; that she presents a substantial risk of harm to herself and others; and that commitment to an inpatient treatment facility is the least restrictive appropriate setting for her treatment. Having found Holly met the statutory criteria for involuntary treatment under OCGA § 37-3-1(12), the superior court affirmed the retention order. While Holly included in her hand-written notice of appeal from the superior court's order a statement of her intention to retain her right to replace court-appointed counsel, both Holly's enumeration of error and brief were filed by the attorney representing Holly in the hearings below.
Holly contends in her sole enumeration that the superior court erred by affirming the retention order in that GMHI failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Holly met the statutory criteria for committal. To address the validity of this enumeration, it is necessary to examine the transcript of the hearing in order to determine whether GMHI met its evidentiary burden. However, no transcript of evidence presented during the hearing was requested or transmitted to this court. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. State, A17A0115
...under OCGA § 35-3-37 ).21 See n. 6, supra.22 Powell v. State , 271 Ga. App. 550, 552, 610 S.E.2d 178 (2005) ; In re: Holly , 188 Ga. App. 202, 203, 372 S.E.2d 479 (1988) ; Rothstein v. Brooks , 133 Ga. App. 52 (2), 209 S.E.2d 674 (1974).23 Etkind v. Suarez , 271 Ga. 352, 358 (5), 519 S.E.2d......
-
In re Ray
...(absent transcript, probate court's appointment of successor guardian presumed proper). 14. (Punctuation omitted) In re Holly, 188 Ga. App. 202, 203, 372 S.E.2d 479 (1988); see also Renshaw v. Feagin, 199 Ga.App. 148, 151(3), 404 S.E.2d 457 15. OCGA § 51-1-9; Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. S......
- K.B., In Interest of, 76520
-
Taylor v. State
...it from the record on appeal, the appellate court must assume the judgment below was correct and affirm.' (Cits.)" ' In re Holly, 188 Ga.App. 202, 203 (372 SE2d 479) (1988)." Coffee v. Silver, 195 Ga.App. 247, 248, 393 S.E.2d 58 (1990). Moss v. State, 194 Ga.App. 181, 390 S.E.2d 268 Judgmen......