In Re MH 2006-002044

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN RE MH 2006-002044 1 CA-MH 06-0034 DEPARTMENT A O P I N I O N Filed 11-6-07 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. MH-2006-002044 The Honorable Randy Ellexson, Commissioner AFFIRMED Andrew P. Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney By Anne C. Longo, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Tennie B. Martin, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix H A L L, Judge ¶1 that Appellant asks us to vacate the superior court's order he undergo treatment for a mental following reasons, we affirm the order. disorder. For the FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 On October detained at Value 18, 2006 8:15 p.m., Urgent Options at Appellant Care Center based was on an Application for Emergency Admission for Evaluation completed by his sister. Initial assessments were done that night, and a full psychiatric evaluation was done the next morning. four hours after she completed the first Twenty- Application for Emergency Admission, Appellant's sister completed a second one, giving essentially the same reasons for believing her brother had a mental disorder and posed a danger to himself and others. ¶3 At 3:10 p.m. on October Court-Ordered Evaluation was filed. 20, 2006, a Petition for Four days later, Appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition for Court-Ordered Evaluation, which the court denied on October 26, 2006. Petition for Court-Ordered Treatment was In the interim, a filed, and at a November 1, 2006 hearing, the court ordered a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment that was not to exceed one year. pursuant Appellant to timely Arizona appealed, Revised and Statutes we have (A.R.S.) jurisdiction sections 12- 120.21(A)(1), -2101(K)(1) (2003), and 36-546.01 (2003). ISSUE ON APPEAL ¶4 The issue on appeal is whether A.R.S. § 36-527(A) (2003) requires the trial court to dismiss a Petition for CourtOrdered Evaluation that is not filed within twenty-four hours of 2 taking a person into custody. the court's involuntary Appellant argues we should vacate treatment and commitment order both because the statute was violated and because his due process rights were violated. ANALYSIS The Statute ¶5 According to A.R.S. § 36-527(A), "[a] person taken into custody for emergency admission may not be detained longer than twenty-four hours . . . unless a petition for court-ordered evaluation is filed." The trial court denied the motion to dismiss the petition "notwithstanding the fact that it's the result of an extra day being detained." Although § 36-527(A) provides that a person may not be detained longer than twentyfour hours unless a Petition for Court-Ordered Evaluation is filed, it does not specify what the legal consequences are if someone statutory is detained longer. interpretation de We novo. review In such re questions Maricopa of County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, 203 Ariz. 351, 353, ¶ 8, 54 P.3d 380, 382 (App. 2002). ¶6 The statute is framed to say that a person may not be detained more than twenty-four hours if a petition is not filed. It is not framed to say that a petition may not be filed if a person has been detained for more than twenty-four hours. This suggests that although it is clearly illegal to detain a person 3 for more than twenty-four hours without filing a petition, it is not clearly illegal to file a petition more than twenty-four hours after the individual is detained. detention petition. that violates the statute, It is the prolonged not the filing of the Therefore, we find that what the statute guarantees is a right to be released after twenty-four hours rather than a right to have an untimely petition dismissed. Due Process ¶7 court's Appellant also argues that we should vacate the trial order because his due process rights were violated. This is also a question of law, which we review de novo. Mack v. Cruikshank, 196 Ariz. 541, 544, ¶ 6, 2 P.3d 100, 103 (App. 1999). In order to vacate the trial court's order on this basis, however, Appellant would have to demonstrate that the violation of his right to be released after twenty-four hours affected the subsequent review of the Petitions Ordered Evaluation and Court-Ordered Treatment. for Court- But, in fact, Appellant has not alleged that he did not receive a fair hearing because of his illegal detention. ¶8 In State v. Maldonado, the defendant asked our supreme court to reverse his conviction for burglary on the ground that seventy-nine days had preliminary hearing. (1962). elapsed between his arrest and his 92 Ariz. 70, 72-73, 373 P.2d 583, 584 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3898 (2001), then A.R.S. § 13- 4 1418, the defendant, arrested without a warrant, was supposed to have been delay." this brought before a magistrate "without unnecessary According to the court, "[t]hat a flagrant violation of statute argument. has occurred in this instance is not open to Indeed the State candidly admits that defendant was unlawfully incarcerated and also admits that had he desired to seek relief by way of habeas corpus a writ would have issued." Id. at 73, 373 P.2d at 584-85. ¶9 The court held, however, that "unless the preliminary delay in some way deprives an accused of a fair trial there is no denial of due process of law." Id. at 76, 373 P.2d at 587; see also State v. Godfrey, 136 Ariz. 471, 473, 666 P.2d 1080, 1082 (App. 1983) (holding that defendant incarcerated for eighteen days prior to his initial appearance in violation of Arizona Rule dismissal of of Criminal action Procedure against him). principle applies here. 5 4.1 We was hold not entitled that the to same CONCLUSION ¶10 Because Appellant has not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from his illegal detention, we affirm the trial court's order for treatment. PHILIP HALL, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: G. MURRAY SNOW, Judge MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge 6

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.