NOTICE OF APPE;EI.L OF APPELLANT RETHA the probate court that Retha Thomas was inconipetent for the

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of NOTICE OF APPE;EI.L OF APPELLANT RETHA the probate court that Retha Thomas was inconipetent for the

  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

    In the Matter of Retha A. Thomas Defendant-Appell ant,

    v.

    Franklin county ADAMH Board

    Plaintiff- Appellees.

    ^^ , ,., ,_,._. r CASE I^10. M ,. '

    Appeal from the Franktin county

    Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate

    1.^lstrict.

    NOTICE OF APPE;EI.L OF APPELLANT RETHA THOIVIAS

    Michael J Evans Attorney For ADAMH Executive A^enczes Section 261 West Johnstown Road Columbus, OH 43230-2732 Phone: 614-475-9511 Fax: (f^14} 475-0348

    Attorney for Appellees

    Retha A. Thomas Pro se Appellant 1040 Loretta Avenue Columbus, OH 43211 (614) 209-2579 Pro se Appeliant .;,, .f ^>: ,^ ,,.^Fu,^^..i; n, ^, ^^ ,

    ; y^ 3 . ^, f_, } ^_.,^ ^.;I_ .E'+. rJ; t^ f,,^f

  • NOTICE OF APPEAL OF APPELLANT RETHA THOMAS

    Appellant RETIIA TI-IOMAS hereby gives notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio

    Appeal from the Franklin county Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District, entered in Court of

    Appeals Case No. 13AP-291 on November 5, 2013. This case raises substantial constitutional

    questions, one of great public or general interest.

    Respectfully ^

    ubmitted ^` .

    4 Retha A. Thomas Pro se Appellant 1040 Loretta Avenue Columbus, OH 43211 (614) 209-2579 I'ro se Appellant

  • Certificate of service

    I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing has been served upon Michael J Evans

    Attorraey For ADAMH Executive Agencies Section 261 West Johnstown Road

    Columbus, OH 43230-2732 Phone: 614-475-9511 Fax: (614) 475-0348, this day of November 5,

    2013.

    Respectfully su mitted

    Retha A. Thomas Pro se Appellant 1040 Loretta Avenue Columbus, OH 43211 (614) 209-2579 Pro se Appellant

  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

    In the Matter of Retha A. Tliomas Defendant-Appellant,

    V.

    Franklin county AI7AMH Board

    Plaintiff- Appeilees.

    CASE NO.

    Appeal from the Franklin county

    Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate

    District.

    MEMORANDUM IN SLIPPORT OF JURISDICTION OF APPELLANT RETHA THOMAS

    Michael J Evans Attorney For ADAMH Executive Agencies Section 261 West Johnstown Road Columbus, OH 43230-2732 Phone: 614-475-9511 Fax: (614) 475-0348

    Attomey for Appellees

    Retha A. Thomas Pro se Appellant 1040 Loretta Avenue Columbus, OH 4321.1 (614) 209-2579 Pro se Appellant

  • Table of contents

    EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT

    GENERAL INTEREST ........ ..............:.................................................. 1

    STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ...................

    ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION OF LAW,:°...°,,,,.°,. 4

    Proposition of Law No. I: The Ohio revised code and first amendment of the united states constitution

    prohibits the State from violating the rights of an individual competent of incompetent of forced admission and medication .

    based .. ................................................ ........................ 5

    CONCLUSION ... ..........................................................................:........:... 7

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....: ............. ° ° .,....,....... 9

    APPENDiX:

    Decision and Judgment

  • EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBI..IC OR GREAT

    This matter is of great interest because of the matter represents a matter of constitutional violation

    upon a persons rights of speech and cruel and unusual punishment.

  • ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

    ASSIGNMENT OF ERI2OR ONE.

    The First assignment of error of the March 28thth probate court objection hearing decision is when the court made the error of upholding the magistrates decision

    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO.

    N0 ®0 a

    n. ® C14 coCN c :3 M 0 CN ^ :3 0 v ^ 0 x ^ U w

    m u ^.

    ^ O ^

    0 U 0

    0>1̂ 0̂ ^

    U-

    11. The second assignment of error of the March 28thth probate court objection hearing decision is when the trial court's decision was based upon inadmissible evidence

    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THREE.

    ill. The third assignment of error of the March 28th`" probate court objection hearing decision is

    when trial court made the error by forcing medication on the appellant

    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR FOUR.

    IV. The fourth assignment of error of the March 28th`h probate court objection hearing decision is

    when the trial court made the error by precluding appellant from introducing evidence at her hearing, as guaranteed by Revised code 5122.15.

    /

    -X ^-^

  • Statement of case and facts

    Before March 20th 2013 and right after Febrttary 8th 2013 of her posted bond Retha Thomas was placed in Riverside Methodist hospital for a separate altercation with the Columbus police department from that of a phone confrontation of words that caused the Columbus police on that of February 28th 2013 to notify the netcare mental healtli facility to have her placed into riverside Methodist hospital on that of March 4tti 2013. A probate con.irnitznent hearing at the twin valley mental health facility was held on March 6th 2013, were she was not there for, that established she was there not there under arrest or for any criniinal charges related to her case but for the separate events of the phone confrontation with that of the Columbus police department and with that of an examination evaluation done by Dr. Bates. Dr. Bates gave his reasoning to the probate court that Retha Thomas was inconipetent for the given matter with that of the confrontation with the police and the probate court took the doctor's recommendation and ordered her to be comrnitted to the Riverside hospital. After that the hospital doctors at riverside moved for forced treatment upon Retha Thomas so the probate court held another hearing on March 13th 2013 were the doctor presented to the probate court name Dr. Dallas Erdmann of Riverside. In the hearing the probate court asked Dr. Edraman could the treatment for Retha Thomas make her normal again and if so how long. Dr. Erdmann stated to the probate court he felt she would only need the treatment for two weeks after the start of it be normal again. The probate court agreed and set the treatment until that time. After she started and finished her treatment to return to normal again the that is when on march 21 't 2013 the franklin county municipal judge Vanderkarr made the order with no hearing for Retha Thomas to be transferred from riverside to that of twin valley until Judge 1'yack over road to release for Varaderkarr procedure violation.

    N)^

    ^/1

  • ASSIGNMFN'' F ERROR ONF.,^ . .

    The First assignment of error of the March 28tht'' probate court objection hearing decision is

    when he made the error of the March 6'h magistrate decision to base the decision on the fact

    that February 7Th 2013 she was charged with a misdemeanor and not felony of the requested

    officer by the detective because the matter was not emphasized as substantial. If the detective

    at the time felt her having the knives was substantial risk due to a mental condition then the

    netcare screening would have been made then not 21 days after to be filed on February 28th

    2013. Based the decision on that of the information that was a separate prior municipal court

    incident that the respondent had not been convicted of that was stated by the doctor. Similar

    information was stated on the municipal court affidavit and the probate court detainment order

    fact section introduction. This would be mentioned in that of the probate court order of

    detainment and in the opening states with in the transcripts of which doctor Bates stated this

    comes from the respondent attacking something that she was not convicted of doing. This is

    stated on that of page 17 and line 7-19 of the court transcripts. Based the decision on only after

    the police argument and statement was established the police order for the netcare screening

    for the respondent was requested and added other separated unrelated things to form a greater

    matter then what it was to push the process for their complaint just concerning them.

    ,X^ HEFFEL, APPELLANT v, ULIKOINSKI, SUPT., APPELLEE

    CASE SUMMARY

    PROCEDURAL POST E;Appellant sought review of a decision by the Court of Appeals for Guernsey County (Ohio), w h denied his application for a writ of habeas corpus directed agauist appellee mental health centerfsuperintendent. In denying the writ, the court of appeals found that the evidence was sufficient to justi"ry appeltant's involuntary coinmitment and thathe was not deprived of dae process. 1 " .

    OVERV.TEW: Appellant filed for voluntary admission to the mental health center under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5122.15(G), and he subsequentIy requested ]iis release pursuairt to § 5122.03. The center filed an affidavit utider § 5122.12 to comrnence involuntary commitment prnceedings, and appellant was referred to the center for examination and treatinent after a cozi?.mitmenYheariuig in a court of common pleas. He unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus in the court of appeals, and he eventuali was dischartred frorn the center The court reversed the rt f i d th t d ' d thy t, cou o appea s or er a eme writ and found that the State did not ineet its burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that appellant satisfied the requirements in § 5122,01(B) for involuntary commitment. The-exW=cg did nQt establish that he ucas tznable to provide for his basic.physical need