In re MH 2008-000028
Court of Appeals of Arizona
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
- Walker v. City of ScottsdaleCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1989
- Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1995
- Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1987
- Marvin Johnson, PC v. MyersArizona Supreme Court · 1995
- Washburn v. Pima CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- In Re Mh 2008-002659Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
- Estate of Maudsley v. Meta Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
- Rider v. GarciaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
- In Re Mh2010-002348Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
- Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.