Legal Opinion

Potter v. Vanderpool

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided October 5, 2010No. 2 CA-SA 2010-0047, 2 CA-SA 2010-0048PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KELLY, Judge.

¶ 1 In these consolidated special actions, we are asked to determine whether a superi- or court judge may refuse to appoint at least two mental health experts to assess a criminal defendant’s competency to stand trial, after a court of limited jurisdiction has found, pursuant to Rule 11.2(c), Ariz. R.Crim. P., there are reasonable grounds to conduct a full competency examination. Based on the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 11.2(d), we hold that the superior court does not have the authority to review a lower court’s decision and substitute its own reasonable…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. MoodyArizona Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Fragoso v. FellCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  3. ChartOne, Inc. v. BerniniCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
  4. Devenir Associates v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEILCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Southwest Gas Corp. v. IRWIN EX REL. COUNTYCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
  2. State v. MendozaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
  3. Osterkamp v. BrowningCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
  4. State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin LopezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
  5. Cornerstone Hospital of Southeast Arizona v. Ernest H. BlackburnCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API