In re MH 2009-000635

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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN RE MH 2009-000635 The court, Presiding Judge No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 06-24-010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-MH 09-0031 DEPARTMENT A Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2009-000635 DECISION ORDER Patricia Orozco and Judges Daniel A. Barker and Lawrence F. Winthrop participating, has considered Appellant s appeal of the superior court s order for involuntary mental health treatment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-2101(K) (2003) and 36-546.01 (2009). Appellant raises a single issue in his appeal - that the superior court was required to engage in a colloquy with him personally to determine whether he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived physicians who evaluated him testify. his right to have the We addressed this issue in a recent opinion and, for the same reasons expressed therein, we affirm. See In re MH 2009-001264, ___ Ariz. ___, 229 P.3d 1012 (App. 2010). Procedurally, this case is nearly identical to MH 2009001264. The superior court conducted a hearing on a petition for court-ordered treatment at which counsel for both parties stipulated to admit the two evaluating physicians affidavits and the testimony. 72-hour medication affidavit in lieu of See id. at ___, ¶ 4, 229 P.3d at 1013. in-person The court, however, did not engage in a colloquy directly with Appellant to determine whether he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the physicians in-person testimony. no other stipulations, and the hearing The parties entered proceeded. At the conclusion of the hearing, the superior court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Appellant is, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to others, persistently or acutely disabled, and in need of psychiatric treatment. The court ordered a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment for a period not to exceed 365 days, with the period of inpatient treatment not to exceed 180 days. Appellant timely appealed, raising the single, aforementioned issue. For the reasons set forth in MH 2009-001264, we affirm the superior court s treatment order. _______________/S/___________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge 2

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.