People v. Gilford, 97CA1263
| Decision Date | 27 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97CA1263,97CA1263 |
| Citation | 981 P.2d 1099 |
| Parties | 98 CJ C.A.R. 5945 The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Frank J. GILFORD, Respondent-Appellant. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Daniel E. Muse, City Attorney, R.W. Hibbard, III, Assistant City Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Judith M. Firestone, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent-Appellant.
Opinion by Judge MARQUEZ.
Respondent, Frank Gilford, appeals the judgment of the probate court granting the People's petition for long-term care and treatment and request for involuntary medications. We vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Respondent has an extensive history of hospitalization and treatment at mental health centers. In December 1996, following a court-ordered evaluation, he was certified for short-term care and treatment pursuant to § 27-10-107, C.R.S.1998. The certification was subsequently extended in March 1997, to June 6, 1997, and an accompanying motion for involuntary medication was granted at the same hearing.
The record indicates that respondent did not comply with the court ordered treatment and was not seen after April 3, 1997. The following week, the court granted a motion to take the respondent into custody. However, the sheriff filed a statement with the court on May 22 that he was unable to locate him.
The next day the People filed a petition for long-term care and treatment and on May 29 mailed a copy to respondent's attorney. Because respondent could not be located, the petition was not served on him. However, a hearing was scheduled for June 6, 1997.
Alleging that respondent had not been personally served with notice of the hearing as required by § 27-10-109(2), C.R.S.1998, respondent's attorney objected to the hearing and moved to dismiss. The probate court denied respondent's motion, proceeded with the hearing, granted the petition for long-term care and treatment, and also granted the People's motion for an order extending authorization of certain medical treatment. This appeal followed.
Respondent asserts that the trial court erred when it failed to grant his motion to dismiss the petition for long-term certification. He argues that he was not given a copy of the petition, had no notice of the hearing, and was not brought to court. Accordingly, he contends that he was not afforded due process. We conclude that dismissal was not warranted, but also conclude that further proceedings are necessary.
Procedures for involuntary civil commitment of the mentally ill are prescribed by statute. People in Interest of Lynch, 783 P.2d 848 (Colo.1989).
To obtain a court-ordered mental health evaluation, § 27-10-106(6), C.R.S.1998, requires that, at the time the person to be evaluated is taken into custody, a copy of the petition and the order for evaluation "shall be given to the respondent." Section 27-10-107(3), C.R.S.1998, provides that, in regard to certification for short-term treatment, within twenty-four hours of certification, copies of the certification shall be personally delivered to the respondent. For long-term care and treatment, § 27-10-109(2), C.R.S.1998, provides that a copy of the petition "shall be delivered personally to the respondent for whom long-term care and treatment is sought and mailed to his attorney of record simultaneously with the filing thereof."
Because of the curtailment of personal liberty which results from a certification for involuntary treatment, strict adherence to the procedural requirements of the civil commitments statutes is required. Each certification proceeding requires that a statutorily mandated time has elapsed, and each step in the proceedings is in this sense sequential and dependent upon the earlier proceedings for its existence. People in Interest of Dveirin, 755 P.2d 1207 (Colo.1988).
Nevertheless, we reject respondent's assertion that failure to comply with the statutory requirement for personal delivery of a copy of the petition requires dismissal.
Here, as a preliminary matter, by virtue of service in the short-term certification proceeding, the probate court had personal jurisdiction over respondent at the time of the hearing on this matter.
As noted above, in the present case, respondent has a long history of treatment and hospitalization, and the record indicates that he has undergone a court-ordered evaluation and has been certified for short-term care and treatment which was subsequently extended. During this time, an order was entered requiring him to receive involuntary medications.
While there is some authority indicating that respondent's presence at a hearing is not required, see People v. Medina, 705 P.2d 961 (Colo.1985), here, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilford v. People, No. 99SC79.
...proceedings, but nonetheless concluded that no action can be taken on the petition until such service occurs. See People v. Gilford, 981 P.2d 1099, 1101-02 (Colo.App.1998). We disagree with the analysis of the court of appeals, and hold, instead, that the failure to personally deliver a cop......
-
PEOPLE EX REL. GILFORD, 98CA0328
...because respondent had not been served with a copy of the petition as required by the civil commitment statutes. See People v. Gilford, 981 P.2d 1099 (Colo.App.1998). On November 6, 1997, during the pendency of that appeal, the People filed the petition at issue here, seeking an extension o......