Legal Opinion
Holt v. Hotham
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided June 6, 2000No. 1 CA-SA 00-0109PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EHRLICH, Judge.
¶ 1 Kenneth V. Holt seeks special action relief, claiming that he is being wrongfully incarcerated for contempt of court because he refuses to undergo a psychosexual evaluation to be used in a legal determination of whether he is a sexually violent person. For the reasons that follow, we accept jurisdiction and deny relief.
¶ 2 Holt was convicted of child molestation and sentenced to a 14-year prison term. Prior to Holt’s release from prison, Dr. Barry Morenz performed without Holt’s permission a psychosexual evaluation of Holt as required by the Sexually Violent Persons…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Allen v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Martin v. ReinsteinCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
- Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1966
- Rineer v. LeonardoArizona Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. MulliganArizona Supreme Court · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Guthrie v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- Walter v. WilkinsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
- Parent v. McClennenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
- Doe v. ArpaioCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
- In Re Fredrick B.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2019