Jones v. State

689 S.W.3d 98

2024 Ark. App. 283

Holly JONES, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CV-23-465

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION III.

Opinion Delivered May 1, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 23PR-23-171], HONORABLE TROY BRASWELL, JUDGE

Joseph Paul Smith, P.A., Springdale, by: Heather Hersh, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Brooke Jackson Gasaway, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

₁Holly Jones appeals the Faulkner County Circuit Court’s decision to grant a petition to involuntarily commit her for forty-five days. On appeal, Jones contends that (1) the petition for her commitment was deficient because it was unverified; (2) the petition failed to allege specific facts supporting the contention that she was a clear and present danger to herself or others; (3) there is no evidence in the record that she was served with a copy of a statement of rights; (4) the circuit court failed to attach her treatment plan to the commitment order; (5) hearsay evidence was erroneously admitted; and (6) the commitment was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm.

I. Relevant Facts

On March 16, 2023, Jessica Burroughs, the interim director of clinical services at the Conway Behavioral Health facility (CBH), filed a petition for the involuntary forty-five-day ₂commitment of Holly Jones. The petition alleged that treatment and supervision was necessary because Jones posed a likelihood of danger to herself or others. In the affidavit attached to the petition, Burroughs stated that Jones was admitted to CBH for a seven-day mental-health evaluation in September 2022; however, Jones absconded after the petition was granted. Jones returned to Arkansas, and on March 13, 2023, Jones was admitted to CBH with "exacerbated psychosis," presenting "rambling, pressured speech and manic behaviors." Jones had not complied with medication treatment, refused to attend group therapy, and was diagnosed with bipolar I, mania. She denied needing treatment; was highly uncooperative, irritable, and paranoid; demonstrated poor judgement; and lacked awareness and insight into her condition. Burroughs stated that Jones was "at high risk for continued safety concerns, impulsive behaviors that have led to arrests and incarceration, and violence toward others." The circuit court set a hearing for the next day.

At the hearing, Burroughs testified that Jones was involuntarily committed for seven days in September 2022; however, Jones left the state before she was committed, and the petition was not fulfilled. Burroughs stated that Jones has bipolar I, mania; and Jones believed that her family members and treatment team are "psychopaths." During her seven-day commitment preceding this hearing, Jones refused medication and treatment and had been verbally aggressive, combative, irritable, agitated and "can go from completely calm to completely off in seconds. And she does get very close to you, does call you all different types of names, and closes that gap. And it does present that threat and danger." Jones, who was represented by counsel, testified that she had recently been in Texas and incurred legal issues there: "I drove to Texas because I needed to report a crime against, my landlord who was a federal magistrate. So, I wanted to be ₃in a different state. So, I did that. And I ran into an issue where I was already on a list." Jones testified that two weeks before the hearing, when she was still in Texas, she was found competent to stand trial for assault. Jones stated that she was not suicidal. When Jones was asked if she wanted to hurt anybody else, she responded "No. But I have been baited a lot in the facility where I have been." Jones stated that she was able to care for herself, and she would like to live at Our House because she had very little money, and the director of Our House was a fellow alum of Hendrix College. Jones testified that she had obtained a second opinion regarding her need for medication, and she did not need medicati?n. Jones testified that she was not currently taking any medication at all, and she stopped taking lithium and Risperdal because it gave her inner-ear issues and tardive dyskinesia.

The court granted the petition, finding that "Ms. Jones needs her commitment extended to get back on a good medicine regimen so that she can be safe." After Jones expressed her opinion that the court had not listened to her testimony, the court explained that "[w]hen the evidence is overwhelming that you don’t know what’s going on, that you are saying things that are not consistent with reality— … I have found by clear and convincing evidence that you need continued treatment."

The same day, the circuit court entered the order finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that Jones suffered from mental illness and posed a clear and present danger to herself or others. The court ordered that Jones be admitted to the Arkansas State Hospital for forty-five days. Jones timely filed her notice of appeal.

₄II. Discussion

A. Preservation of First Five Points on Appeal

We first address the preservation issues regarding Jones’s first five points on appeal.

[1] For her first point on appeal, Jones argues that the petition for her commitment was deficient because the notary did not add his signature to his seal; thus, it was unverified—a fatal flaw that in her reply brief she contends failed to convey jurisdiction. Jones’s argument is not preserved for appeal because Arkansas Code Annotated § 20-47-207(a) (Repl. 2018) addresses venue, not jurisdiction:

(a) Written Petition - Venue. Any person having reason to believe that a person meets the criteria for involuntary admission as defined in subsection (c) of this section may file a verified petition with the circuit clerk of the county in which the person alleged to have mental illness resides or is detained.

[2] "[A]bsent an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, an appellate court will not address an issue if it was not presented to the trial court, ruled upon by the trial judge, and argued by the parties on appeal." Edwards v. Edwards, 2009 Ark. 580, at 8, 357 S.W.3d 445, 450. Arkansas Code Annotated § 20-47-207(a) is a permissive rule that does not pertain to jurisdiction; thus, we decline to reach the issue Jones raises regarding verification of the petition.

[3] For her second point on appeal, Jones contends that the petition for involuntary commitment failed to allege specific facts to support the contention that she was a clear and present danger to herself or others. Jones had an opportunity to file a motion to dismiss the petition or raise this issue at the hearing but did not do so. We will not address issues raised for the first time on appeal; thus, this issue is not preserved for our review. See Westin v. Hays, 2017 Ark. App. 128, at 3, 513 S.W.3d 900, 903; Mason v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 285, 435 S.W.3d 510.

[4]₅For her third point on appeal, Jones argues that Burroughs’s entire testimony was hearsay, and the circuit court erred in considering it. Her argument is not preserved because Jones failed to object to hearsay during Burroughs’s testimony. Our courts have frequently held that a contemporaneous objection must be made to the circuit court before we will review an alleged error on appeal. See Washington v. Washington, 2013 Ark. App. 54, at 10, 425 S.W.3d 858, 865.

[5] In her fourth point on appeal, Jones contends that she was not served with her statutorily required statement of rights, and without valid service of process, the court lacked jurisdiction over the petition. Jones is correct that Ark. Code Ann. § 20-47-211 (Repl. 2018) requires that the statement of rights be served on the detainee; however, the service of the statement of rights is not a jurisdictional issue. The statute states no specific remedy for failure to serve the statement on the defendant or to provide these rights, short of constitutional due-process remedies. See id. Jones, who was represented by counsel, had the opportunity to object to lack of service of her statement of rights at the outset of the hearing or in a motion to dismiss; however, she did not, and her argument is not preserved for appeal. See In re Springer, 2020 Ark. App. 435, at 6-7, 2020 WL 5650710 ("[W]e will not address arguments, even constitutional ones, for the first time on appeal.").

[6] For her fifth point on appeal, Jones also asserts that the circuit court failed to...