at 759. In affirming the trial court’s renewal order, we cited evidence that the patient had a history of violating the mental hospital’s rules, of screaming at one of his doctors, and of engaging in the same sort of behavior that led to his involuntary commitment. Id. These overt acts are pertinent to the statutory criteria for involuntary commitment — and they are entirely missing in appellant’s case. We conclude that if a person does not meet the criteria for involuntary commitment, as those criteria are prescribed in Section 574.035(a), the trial court cannot make a finding to the contrary simply because inpatient care may be more reliable than outpatient care. See Harrison v. State, No. 09-14-00099-CV, 2014 WL 5490942, at *5 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the record contains legally
holding evidence legally sufficient holding evidence legally insufficient holding that evidence was legally insufficient to support statutory fraud finding because appellant was not actually aware of real estate agents misrepresentations holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement holding that the evidence in support of a renewal order was legally insufficient despite testimony that the patients proposed group home was rundown and not a top choice