 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Greeno v. State11/28/2000
o with PTSD, but he found that Mr. Greeno was free of threatening conduct for the one year that he had been at the DMH. Mr. Greeno applied for a conditional release, pursuant to section 552.040.10, that was denied in May 1997 by the Circuit Court of Callaway County. In January 1998, Mr. Greeno stood trial on the charges of assault and armed criminal action. On January 26, 1998, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict and was discharged. The prosecutor dismissed the charges against Mr. Greeno on February 5, 1998, but he remained in the custody of the DMH.
Mr. Greeno was transferred to the Northwest Missouri Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center (Northwest) in July 1998. Dr. Khan, a medical doctor, examined Mr. Greeno upon his admission to Northwest and found him to be suffering from "post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol abuse in remission, cannabis abuse in remission and personality disorder not otherwise specified with dependent and histrionic features."
On January 7, 1999, Dr. Suthikant became Mr. Greeno's treating physician and he found Mr. Greeno to be disruptive, agitated, and threatening. He was described as exhibiting a minor combative behavior including slapping, yelling, pushing, verbal threats and verbal aggression.
Mr. Greeno filed another application for conditional release, pursuant to section 552.040.10, and again, conditional release was denied. A hearing on his application began on May 17, 1999. At the conclusion of all the evidence, on May 19, 1999, the case was taken under advisement and the court entered a judgment and memorandum opinion on June 11, 1999, denying the conditional release. Mr. Greeno appeals this determination.
Mr. Greeno raises three points on appeal. First, he contends the trial court erred in denying his application for conditional release by failing to make a finding that he was currently suffering from a mental disease or defect. Second, he claims the trial court erred in requiring him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he would not be dangerous to others if he was released. Finally, he argues that the trial court's determination that he did not sufficiently prove his "non-dangerousness" was against the weight of the evidence.
Appellate review of the denial of an application for a conditional release from commitment at the DMH is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). Styles v. State, 877 S.W.2d 113, 115 (Mo. banc 1994); see also State v. Zingre, 980 S.W.2d 355, 356 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998). Thus, we will affirm the decision of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy, 536 S.W.2d at 32.
In his first point, Mr. Greeno asserts that the trial court could not deny his application for conditional release without first finding that he is currently suffering from a mental disease or defect. He points out that the court made no such finding and therefore contends the trial court erred in denying his application.
Chapter 552 governs commitment and release of persons tried and acquitted of crimes by reason of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility. Section 552.040.12 sets forth factors the court should consider when making a determination on an application for conditional release:
At a hearing to determine if the committed person should be conditionally released, the court shall consider the following factors in addition to any other relevant evidence:
(1) The nature of the offense for which the committed person was committed;
(2) The person's behavior while confined in a mental he
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|