Johnstone v. State

Decision Date09 March 2000
Docket NumberNo. 99-0463,No. 99-0446,99-0446,99-0463
Citation22 S.W.3d 408
Parties(Tex. 2000) MARK MATTHEW JOHNSTONE, PETITIONER v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, RESPONDENT (Two Cases)
CourtTexas Supreme Court

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Per Curiam

These consolidated cases present the question of whether a person appealing from a temporary mental health commitment order must comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 324's motion-for-new-trial requirement to complain about factual insufficiency on appeal. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply generally to mental health commitment proceedings. However, when a rule of procedure conflicts with a statute, the statute prevails unless the rule has been passed subsequent to the statute and repeals the statute as provided by Texas Government Code section 22.004. See Kirkpatrick v. Hurst, 484 S.W.2d 587, 589 (Tex. 1972); Few v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 463 S.W.2d 424, 425 (Tex. 1971). Texas Health and Safety Code section 574.070 requires a proposed mental health patient to file notice of appeal ten days after the trial court signs the commitment order. We conclude that rule 324 and section 574.070 conflict. Therefore, we hold that Rule 324 does not apply in temporary mental health commitment proceedings. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the court of appeals to review the factual sufficiency of the evidence.

Mark Matthew Johnstone appeals two separate temporary mental health commitment orders in which the trial court temporarily committed Johnstone to Rusk State Hospital for in-patient treatment not to exceed ninety days.1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 574.034(g). Johnstone filed a motion for new trial after the first hearing, but did not file one after the second hearing. The court of appeals consolidated the appeals and held that a motion for new trial was required to preserve factual insufficiency error. 988 S.W.2d 950, 952. It also held that the motion for new trial that Johnstone filed in the first case did not preserve factual insufficiency error because it only complained of legal sufficiency. Id. at 953. As a result, the court of appeals held that Johnstone waived factual sufficiency error for both hearings.

Section 574.070 of the Health & Safety Code governs appeals from orders requiring court-ordered mental health services. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 574.070. Subsection (b) mandates that notice of appeal from an order requiring court-ordered mental health services must be filed not later than the 10th day after the trial court signs the order. Id. 574.070(b). Subsection (c) provides that the clerk shall immediately send a certified transcript of the proceedings to the court of appeals once an appeal is filed. Id. 574.070(c). Subsection (e) states that the "court of appeals and supreme court shall give an appeal under this section preference over all other cases and shall advance the appeal on the docket." Id. 574.070(e). By enacting these provisions, the Legislature intended for appeals from commitment orders to proceed expeditiously because the orders result in confinement. Id. 571.002(6) (one of the purposes of the Mental Health Code is to establish procedures for prompt and fair decisions); see also Moss v. State, 539 S.W.2d 936, 940 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1976, no writ) ("Expeditious disposition of such an appeal is appropriate in view of the deprivation of liberty involved and the fact that [hospitalization can only last] ninety days.").

Rule 324 provides that a motion for new trial is required to preserve factual insufficiency error. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 324(b)(2). A party has thirty days from the date the trial court signs the judgment to file a motion for new trial. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a). The trial court has seventy-five days from the date it signed the judgment to rule on the motion or it is overruled by operation of law. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(c). Once the motion is ruled on, the trial court has thirty additional days of plenary jurisdiction. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(e). When a party files a motion for new trial, notice of appeal need not be filed until ninety days after the trial court signs the judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1).

The motion-for-new-trial requirement of our rules conflicts with section 574.070's terms and purpose. The appeals schedule the Legislature created does not contemplate the filing of a motion for new trial. In these types of cases, notice of appeal must be filed ten days after the trial court signs the order, see TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 574.070(b), while under Rule 329b(a) a motion for new trial would not be due until thirty days after the trial court signs the judgment. It would frustrate the statutory purpose to require a complainant to file a motion for new trial after the deadline for perfecting an appeal has already passed. See Moss v. State, 539 S.W.2d 936, 941 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1976, no writ) (holding it would be contradictory to require a motion for new trial after the appeal is already perfected). In Moss, the court was interpreting the former version of section 574.070, which required notice of appeal to be filed five days after the order. The court rejected the argument that because the statute was silent on a motion for new trial, the statute did not affect that requirement. It reasoned that had the Legislature wanted a proposed patient to file a motion for new trial, it would have provided for notice of appeal to be filed after the motion for new trial.2 See id. at 940. Because the statute did not allow time to dispose of a motion for new trial, the trial court held that a motion for new trial was not required. See id.

In addition, a motion for new trial serves...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 cases
  • In re D.W., 2-06-191-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • February 19, 2008
    ...of a conflict between a statute and a rule, the statute prevails unless the rule was adopted subsequent to the statute. Johnstone v. State, 22 S.W.3d 408, 409 (Tex.2000); Few v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 463 S.W.2d 424, 425 (Tex.1971) (construing identical language in former article V, sec......
  • Hebert v. Hopkins
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 1, 2013
    ...the statute prevails unless the rule has been passed subsequent to the statute and repeals the statute....” Johnstone v. State, 22 S.W.3d 408, 409 (Tex.2000) (per curiam). The current version of chapter 74 was passed in 2003 and amended in 2005; rule 90 was approved in 1940 and amended in 1......
  • In re F.M., 14-04-00981-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • December 22, 2005
    ...relying on State psychiatric advice who are unable to afford the luxury of obtaining an independent second opinion.4 The State relies on Johnson v. State, in which the San Antonio Court of Appeals reasoned that an individual who cannot make a rational decision to receive treatment poses a t......
  • Equistar Chems., LP v. Clydeunion DB, Ltd., 14-17-00791-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 16, 2019
    ...459 S.W.3d 565, 569 (Tex. 2015). If a rule of procedure conflicts with a statute, generally the statute prevails. See Johnstone v. State , 22 S.W.3d 408, 409 (Tex. 2000). Undefined terms are typically given their ordinary meaning, but if a different or more precise definition is apparent fr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT