Legal Opinion

In re MH 2008-000028

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided April 21, 2009No. 1 CA-MH 08-0012PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*279OPINION

SWANN, Judge.

¶ 1 This ease requires us to evaluate the interplay between Arizona’s civil commitment statutes and its criminal statute governing incompetent defendants. We conclude that A.R.S. § 13-4517(1) provides an effective alternative to the petition for evaluation prescribed by A.R.S. § 36-523, and hold that an order entered in a criminal case pursuant to § 13-4517 requiring an individual to undergo mental health treatment obviates the need for strict compliance with the preliminary civil evaluation procedure set forth in § 36-523.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 Appellant, J.T.,…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Walker v. City of ScottsdaleCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1989
  2. Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Marvin Johnson, PC v. MyersArizona Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Washburn v. Pima CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In Re Mh 2008-002659Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
  2. Estate of Maudsley v. Meta Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
  3. Rider v. GarciaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
  4. In Re Mh2010-002348Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
  5. Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2019

2 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