IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00069-CR
REGINALD ANTWON SCOTT,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015-913-C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Reginald Antwon Scott entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to the
offenses of stalking and criminal mischief. The trial court found that Appellant was not
guilty by reason of insanity and ordered an initial temporary commitment for a period
not to exceed 30 days and for a mental health evaluation pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 46C.251 and 46C.252 (West 2006). Appellant appealed the order of
commitment, and on July 26, 2017, this Court affirmed the trial court’s order of
commitment in Cause No. 10-16-00370-CR. On February 27, 2017, the trial court
conducted a Hearing on Disposition as provided by TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
46C.253 (West 2006) and rendered an Order of Commitment to Inpatient Facility
pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46C.256 (West 2006). Appellant appeals
from the trial court’s order. We affirm.
Background Facts
In May or June of 2014, Appellant began coming onto the property of Grace Sigler,
who was 89 years-old at the time, and lived alone. Sigler saw Appellant looking into her
front door window, and was informed by a neighbor that Appellant had been standing
on her front porch looking through her door. On February 9, 2015, Sigler’s power went
off at her residence. When her son-in-law came to check on the problem, he found that
all of the switches in the breaker box were turned off. Her son-in-law turned the breakers
back on and installed a lock on the breaker box. A neighbor saw Appellant jump the
fence and go into Sigler’s backyard on that day prior to Sigler’s loss of power in her home.
On February 11, 2015, Sigler’s power went off again. Sigler’s daughter and son-
in-law went to the residence and discovered that the entire electric meter had been
removed. Sigler’s fence was also damaged. A neighbor saw Appellant pulling on Sigler’s
fence a few hours before the power went off. Later, Sigler’s electric meter was found in
a neighbor’s garage, and the meter had been set on fire. Appellant’s mother identified
Scott v. State Page 2
the bottle of lighter fluid used to start the fire as coming from her house. Appellant was
given another warning to stay off of Sigler’s property.
On the night of February 12, 2015, Sigler heard someone banging on the back of
her house. A neighbor saw Appellant in Sigler’s backyard, and he was attempting to
remove the lock on the electric meter by hitting it with a brick. The neighbor called the
police. Appellant was later apprehended.
Order of Commitment
In the sole issue on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding
that he was likely to cause serious bodily injury to another in the future. When reviewing
a trial court's ruling on a mixed question of law and fact the court of appeals may review
de novo the trial court's application of the law to the facts of the case. See Estrada v. State,
154 S.W.3d 604, 607 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We review de novo the trial court's legal
conclusions unless its explicit fact-findings that are supported by the record are also
dispositive of the legal ruling. See State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808, 818 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).
Article 46C.256 provides:
(a) The court shall order the acquitted person committed to a mental
hospital or other appropriate facility for inpatient treatment or residential
care if the state establishes by clear and convincing evidence that:
(1) the person has a severe mental illness or mental retardation;
(2) the person, as a result of that mental illness or mental retardation,
is likely to cause serious bodily injury to another if the person is not
provided with treatment and supervision; and
Scott v. State Page 3
(3) inpatient treatment or residential care is necessary to protect the
safety of others.
(b) In determining whether inpatient treatment or residential care
has been proved necessary, the court shall consider whether the evidence
shows both that:
(1) an adequate regimen of outpatient or community-based
treatment will be available to the person; and
(2) the person will follow that regimen.
(c) The order of commitment to inpatient treatment or residential
care expires on the 181st day following the date the order is issued but is
subject to renewal as provided by Article 46C.261.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46C.256 (West 2006).
In conducting a legal sufficiency review when the burden is clear-and-convincing,
the reviewing court must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the
finding to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or
conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d
256, 266 (Tex.2002); House v. State, 261 S.W.3d 244, 247 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist.] 2008,
no pet). In conducting a factual sufficiency review in this context, the reviewing court
gives due consideration to evidence that the factfinder reasonably could have found to
be clear and convincing. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266; House v. State, 261 S.W.3d at 247.
Appellant waived the right to be present at the hearing on disposition. At the
hearing, the State introduced the physician’s certificate of medical examination of Dr.
Gail Johnson and Dr. Kirby Turner. Dr. Johnson found that Appellant is mentally ill and
Scott v. State Page 4
is likely to cause serious harm to others. Appellant made statements to Dr. Johnson that
“I am safe here” and “I have no problems” and “Today is Monday.” Dr. Johnson
indicated that the examination revealed that Appellant had: “No abnormal psychomotor
movements, affect blunted, mood ‘good’ no thought of harm to self or others. Poor
insight. Poor judgment.” Dr. Johnson recommended continued inpatient hospitalization
finding that Appellant has severe mental illness and that condition will continue for more
than 90 days.
Dr. Turner found that Appellant’s mental diagnosis is paranoid schizophrenia and
that he has a history of noncompliance with treatment. Dr. Turner further found that
Appellant is likely to cause serious harm to others. Dr. Turner noted that Appellant has
multiple prior psychiatric hospitalizations. At the time of the mental examination,
Appellant indicated “I’m not going to be seen.” Dr. Turner found that Appellant has
limited improvement in his mental illness to date and that in his opinion Appellant’s
condition will continue for more than 90 days.
Appellant argues that Dr. Turner’s certificate of medical examination contains no
useable information because he never conducted an examination of Appellant. However,
Dr. Turner’s certificate of medical examination states that his opinion is based upon
medical records and patient interview. Dr. Turner indicated that Appellant refused to be
seen, but Dr. Turner was still able to find that Appellant is mentally ill and likely to cause
serious harm to others.
Scott v. State Page 5
The State presented evidence that Appellant has a severe mental illness, that
Appellant is likely to cause serious harm to others, and that inpatient care or residential
treatment is necessary to protect the safety of others. The record supports the trial court’s
order of commitment pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46C.256 (West 2006).
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
(Chief Justice Gray dissenting with a note)*
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed October 25, 2017
Do not publish
[CR25]
*(Chief Justice Gray dissents. A separate opinion will not issue. He notes, however, that
the medical experts provide no factual basis to support their otherwise conclusory
opinions about Scott’s mental health, and in particular, that he was a danger to others.
The scant evidence presented in this proceeding is not as much as was found to be
insufficient in House v. State, 222 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th] 2007, pet.
denied)(House I). Moreover, in House v. State, 261 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th]
2008, no pet.)(House II) the State made a thorough showing of what is necessary to keep
a violent, dangerous, mentally ill, patient detained against his will by establishing not
only that he was mentally ill, but also explaining why his conduct over the intervening
year supported the mental health experts’ conclusions that he was a present danger to
others such that his continued inpatient treatment was essential. What we have in this
proceeding is a far cry, an extremely far cry, from that level of evidence. Mental health
is admittedly a difficult science. Nobody wants to be the agency, doctor, or judge who
Scott v. State Page 6
allows a mentally ill person to be released, who then causes any type of injury to another
person. The victim in the underlying crime in this case is a compelling example of the
type citizen we all want to protect. But living in a free society, we do not lock up the
mentally ill just because they are difficult to control or tend to engage in behavior that
interferes with the rights of others. Mr. Scott is mentally ill. There really is no doubt
about that. But the State of Texas failed to prove that he was a danger to others. Chief
Justice Gray respectfully dissents from the judgment of the Court to the extent that it
affirms the trial court’s order of commitment.)
Scott v. State Page 7