In re MH 2009-001377

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 2009-001377 ) ) ) ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/24/10 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: JT 1 CA-MH 09-0055 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. MH 2009-001377 The Honorable Patricia Arnold, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Edith M. Lucero, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Richard M. Romley, Maricopa County Attorney By Anne C. Longo, Deputy County Attorney And Roberto Pulver, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee State of Arizona Phoenix O R O Z C O, Judge ¶1 Appellant appeals from the trial court s order commitment for involuntary mental health treatment. of For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the order of commitment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Appellant has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and has previously received in-patient mental health treatment. On May 27, 2009, Appellant s half-sister, J.V., and Appellant s mother attempted to locate Appellant, who had been missing for a couple of days. J.V. and Appellant s mother found Appellant walking in zigzags and observed her talking as if someone was right next to her. When J.V. attempted to embrace Appellant, Appellant became very angry. and verbally threatened her. Appellant screamed at her mother J.V. indicated that Appellant took her shoes off, grinded her teeth and looked like she wanted to hit J.V. as she balled up her fist. Appellant then walked barefoot back to her home; J.V. made a telephone call to report a crisis situation and requested help. ¶3 On the same day, J.V. signed an application for emergency admission for evaluation pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 36-524 (2009) and an application for involuntary evaluation pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-520 (2009). the applications, J.V. explained that Appellant was off In her medication and was self-medicating with marijuana. On May 28, 2009, evaluation Dr. H. filed a petition 2 for court-ordered pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-523 (2009). Dr. H. concluded on the basis was of J.V. s applications, there reasonable cause to believe that as a result of a mental disorder, Appellant was a danger to herself and a danger to others. ¶4 On May 29, 2009, a detention order for evaluation and notice was issued pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-529.A (2009), and was served on Appellant the same day. On June 1, 2009, Dr. P. evaluated Appellant and found to probable diagnosis of Bipolar her be Disorder, Psychosis and Cannabis Abuse. suffering Manic, from a Without Additionally, Dr. P. found Appellant to be a danger to others and persistently or acutely disabled (PAD). Dr. P. also noted that Appellant s thoughts, cognition and memory were impaired; Appellant s drug screen was positive cocaine; for marijuana, and Appellant hallucinations. amphetamines, had been methamphetamines, observed having and auditory Dr. S. also evaluated Appellant, and he found Appellant to be suffering from a probable diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder, Manic and also Polysubstance Abuse. Appellant was both a danger to others and PAD. that, based on his interview, Appellant Dr. S. found Dr. S. commented was spiritually preoccupied and was extremely delusional as she stated, I am guided by Allah, and I mean Allah because of Aladdin. ¶5 Dr. P. filed a petition for court-ordered treatment (PCOT) on June 2, 2009, pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-533 (2009). 3 The trial court held a hearing on the PCOT on June 8, 2009. parties stipulated to (1) the admission of the The physicians affidavits in lieu of taking their testimony as required by statute; and (2) qualifications. the After sufficiency hearing of all of the the physicians testimony and considering the evidence presented, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Appellant was, as a result of a mental disorder, PAD and a danger to others. Additionally, the trial court found Appellant was in need of psychiatric treatment and was unable or unwilling to accept voluntary treatment. The trial court ordered combined inpatient/outpatient treatment not to exceed 365 days, with the maximum time for the inpatient treatment not to exceed 180 days. ¶6 Appellant timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21.A.1, -2101.K (2003) and 36-546.01 (2009). DISCUSSION ¶7 Appellant argues the involuntary treatment order should be vacated on three bases because the trial court: (1) abused others; its (2) discretion failed to in finding make Appellant express was findings a that danger to Appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her statutory right to have the evaluating physicians testify; and (3) failed 4 to ascertain whether the credentials of the evaluating physicians met the statutory requirements. ¶8 Appellant failed to raise issues two and three before the trial court and we generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal. Englert v. Carondelet Health Network, 199 Ariz. 21, 26, ¶ 13, 13 P.3d 763, 768 (App. 2000); see In re Pima County Mental Health Serv. No. MH-1140-6-93, 176 Ariz. 565, 568, 863 P.2d 284, 287 (App. 1993) (arguments waived on appeal). not raised below are usually deemed We have discretion in deciding whether to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. In re MH 2007-001275, 219 Ariz. 216, 219, ¶ 11, 196 P.3d 819, 822 (App. 2008), superseded by statute on other grounds, A.R.S. § 36-539.B (Supp. 2009). ¶9 Because Appellant s argument regarding the trial court s finding that Appellant was a danger to others was raised before the trial court, we address it on appeal. In her reply brief, Appellant concedes that recent case law has resolved the issue that potential a trial patient court s knowingly, failure to ascertain voluntarily, and whether a intelligently waived her statutory right to have the evaluating physicians testify does not violate due process. See In re MH 2009-001264, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶¶ 10-11, 229 P.3d 1012, 1015 (App. 2010). 5 We deem the remaining issue waived. See MH-1140-6-93, 176 Ariz. at 568, 863 P.2d at 287. Finding Appellant a danger to others was not error ¶10 Appellant discretion when argues it found that the trial Appellant a court abused danger to its others. Specifically, Appellant contends that because the State, in its closing argument, indicated that it had not presented sufficient evidence to find Appellant a danger to others, the trial court erred in so finding. ¶11 On treatment order. to appeal, determine review if an order substantial for evidence involuntary supports the In re MH 2008-001188, 221 Ariz. 177, 179, ¶ 14, 211 P.3d 1161, 1163 (App. 2009). factual we findings We will not set aside a trial court s unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence. clearly erroneous or In re MH 94-00592, 182 Ariz. 440, 443, 897 P.2d 742, 745 (App. 1995). For a court to order by involuntary treatment, it must find convincing evidence that treatment is necessary. clear and A.R.S. § 36- 540 (Supp. 2009); In re MH 2007-001236, 220 Ariz. 160, 165, ¶ 15, 204 P.3d 418, 423 (App. 2008). ¶12 Prior to making its finding, the court noted that it considered both physicians affidavits. Both physicians, as discussed above, concluded that, based on their interviews with Appellant, she was a danger to others. 6 Specifically, Dr. P. noted that Appellant had been verbally abusive mother and sister, requiring police intervention. towards her Dr. S. noted that when asked about an altercation with her mother, Appellant stated, You d better believe it, I was mad. Dr. S. also noted that Appellant had reportedly become extremely aggressive and threatening towards her mother. After announcing its finding, Appellant requested the trial court enumerate the facts that supported the finding that Appellant was a danger to others. The trial court specified that Appellant: [Was] in a threatening mode when she was approached by her sister and her mother. She took her shoes off. She was grinding her teeth. She was clinching [sic] her fist. She looked like she was going to hit the sister, and the sister said she was in fear and that she felt she may have to respond with physical aggression herself to if the sister approached her. ¶13 Because we conclude that sufficient evidence supports the trial court s findings, we affirm the trial court s order of commitment. 7 CONCLUSION ¶14 court s For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the trial order of commitment for involuntary mental health treatment. /S/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /S/ ____________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge /S/ ____________________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge 8

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.