In re MH 2009-000662
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 2009-000662 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 03/25/2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-MH 09-0032 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. MH 2009-000662 The Honorable Patricia Arnold, Judge Pro Tem AFFIRMED Andrew P. By and Attorneys Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney Anne C. Longo, Deputy County Attorney Bruce P. White, Deputy County Attorney for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Kathryn L. Petroff, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 Appellant appeals involuntary treatment. from the trial court s order For the following reasons, we affirm. for ¶2 trial Appellant raises one issue on appeal: court erred in finding that she was whether the persistently and acutely disabled because there was not substantial and competent evidence that she was suffering from a mental disorder. ¶3 The state filed a petition for involuntary treatment alleging that appellant was persistently and acutely disabled and a danger to self. The state later moved to dismiss the danger to self allegation and the trial court dismissed that allegation. At the involuntary treatment hearing, both sides stipulated to the admission of the affidavits of Dr. Brennan and Dr. Merrill in lieu of their live testimony. state presented the testimony of intervention specialists at Terros. J.T. Additionally, the and A.Q., crisis J.T. testified that prior to filing the application for involuntary evaluation he visited appellant at her long term residence home after staff at the residence became concerned and called Terros. J.T. observed that appellant was agitated, hyperactive, and had "a lot of derailment in her thought associations." Appellant wanted her HIV medications examined as "evidence." Appellant told J.T. that "she didn't feel like she was long for this reality," and while speaking to J.T. she made motions like shooting herself with her finger, a slashing motion against her wrist with a credit card, and a hanging motion with a scarf she was wearing around her neck. Appellant told J.T. she was unwilling to get 2 voluntary treatment. A.Q. testified that appellant displayed psychotic behavior during the visit to her apartment, and that she was upset about her recent previous treatment at Urgent Psychiatric Center. ¶4 Dr. Daniel Merrill examined involuntary commitment hearing. with "a mental disorder appellant prior to the Dr. Merrill diagnosed appellant diagnosed as (Probable Diagnosis) Psychotic Disorder" and found that she was a danger to herself and was persistently or acutely disabled. During his examination of appellant, among other things, appellant told Dr. Merrill that she became "a bridge between the Church of Scientology and a protest Scientology group called Anonymous" after she saw Tom Cruise decompensating on television, and that she had developed an algorithm to ensure peace between the two groups. Dr. Merrill opined that appellant's "preoccupation with these two organizations [was] psychotic in nature." ¶5 Dr. Brennan Michael diagnosed (Probable Brennan appellant Diagnosis) Mood also with Disorder, examined "mental Not appellant. disorder Otherwise . Dr. . . Specified; Cannabis Dependence; HIV Positive" and also found that she was a danger to herself and persistently or acutely disabled. Dr. Brennan the Church similarly of described Scientology and appellant's obsession Anonymous, and with concluded that appellant had a severe mental disorder that, if not treated, had 3 a substantial probability of causing appellant to suffer severe and abnormal significantly mental, impairs emotional, her or judgment, physical reason, harm that behavior, or capacity to recognize reality. ¶6 Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 36-540(A) (2008) provides, in relevant part: A. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed patient, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to self, is a danger to others, is persistently or acutely disabled or is gravely disabled and in need of treatment, and is either unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment, the court shall order the patient to undergo one of the following: . . . 2. Treatment in a program consisting of combined inpatient and outpatient treatment. Based on the testimony of appellant, the state's witnesses, and the doctors' affidavits, the trial court found "by clear and convincing evidence that [appellant] is suffering from a mental disorder and, as a result, is persistently and/or acutely disabled, and is in need of treatment and is either unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment." We find no error. doctors' this affidavits and testimony in case The constituted sufficient evidence to support the court's ruling that appellant had a mental disorder and was persistently or acutely disabled. 4 ¶7 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court s order for involuntary treatment. /s/ _____________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge /s/ _________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ _________________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge 5
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.
