In re MH2011-001994
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 DIVISION ONE FILED: 04/24/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) IN RE MH2011-001994 ) ) ) ) _______________________________________ ) 1 CA-MH 11-0086 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication - Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. MH2011-001994 The Honorable Veronica W. Brame, Commissioner AFFIRMED William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Anne C. Longo, Deputy County Attorney and Bruce P. White, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Marty Lieberman, Maricopa County Legal Defender By Colin F. Stearns, Deputy Legal Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the superior court found by clear and convincing evidence appellant was, as a result of a mental disorder, persistently or acutely disabled, in need of psychiatric treatment, and unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment. Accordingly, the court ordered appellant to undergo a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment not to exceed 365 days ( treatment order ). ¶2 On treatment notice appellant argues we order of treatment section appeal because she was not the hearing on the petition as required by 36-536(A)(2009). Arizona The should personally Revised record for vacate served with court-ordered Statutes before the ( A.R.S. ) us, however, reflects appellant was served with the notice of hearing. ¶3 Appellant grounds her lack-of-service argument on the return of order contained in the un-amended record on appeal as it fails to show the date and time of service petition, detention order, and notice of hearing. of the At appellee s request, we stayed this appeal and revested jurisdiction in the superior court for the purpose of allowing it and the parties to settle the record regarding proof of service. After argument, the superior court amend[ed] the record to include a copy of the Detention Notice that was served upon the Patient in this matter. 1 The 1 Detention Notice identified by the superior Although the superior court stated it was amending the record to include the Detention Notice, it did not transmit a copy of that notice to this court for inclusion in the record on appeal. Appellee has, however, given this court a copy of the Detention Notice identified by the superior court. 2 court reflects appellant was served with the petition, detention order, and notice of hearing on July 27, 2011, more than 72 hours before treatment. the hearing on the petition for court-ordered And, we note, appellant and her counsel attended that hearing. ¶4 return In another context, we have recognized, It is not the but jurisdiction. the fact of service which gives the court The return is merely evidence by which the court may be informed that the defendant has been served. Brandt v. Daman Trailer Sales, Inc., 116 Ariz. 421, 422, 569 P.2d 851, 852 (App. 1977) (citation omitted). reflects appellant was served Here, the record as amended with the notice of hearing as required by A.R.S. § 36-536(A). ¶5 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court s involuntary mental health treatment order. __/s/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: __/s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge __/s/ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
