In re MH 2009-001486

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 2009-001486 ) ) ) ) _______________________________________ ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/17/10 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: JT 1 CA-MH 09-0062 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication - Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. MH 2009-001486 The Honorable Patricia Arnold, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Richard M. Romley, Acting Maricopa County Attorney By Anne C. Longo, Deputy County Attorney and Roberto Pulver, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Tennie B. Martin, Deputy Public 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 appeal, appellant asks us to vacate the treatment order because one of the evaluating physicians, Tuan-Anh Nguyen, M.D., did not use a Spanish evaluation of appellant. language interpreter during her Appellant asserts Dr. Nguyen s failure to do so violated statutory requirements and deprived him of due process. 1 We disagree. claims de novo. We review constitutional and statutory In re MH 2008-002393, 223 Ariz. 240, ___, ¶ 11, 221 P.3d 1054, 1057 (App. 2009). ¶3 Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 36- 501(12)(b) (2009) states every reasonable attempt shall be made to conduct person. the the evaluation in any language preferred by the While appellant clearly preferred to speak in Spanish, record contains ample evidence he spoke and understood English. 1 Appellant implies Dr. Nguyen violated an order entered by the court on June 17, 2009, appointing court interpretation and translation services pursuant to Local Rule of Procedure for Maricopa County 5.12. The record, however, reflects Dr. Nguyen evaluated appellant before the court entered its order. Furthermore, the court entered the order pursuant to Rule 5.12, which had been abrogated February 9, 2009, and which pertained to proceeding[s] before a Probate/Mental Health Department commissioner or judge pro tem, not to physicians evaluations. 2 ¶4 four A psychiatric technician who had met with appellant times although testified Another appellant mental appellant told health him spoke English professional with was who him in English, an evil language. had interacted with appellant every day for five weeks testified appellant spoke to her in English with words interspersed in Spanish. The other evaluating physician, who interviewed appellant with a Spanish interpreter, English, testified continued appellant going back explained and forth his beliefs in between English and Spanish, and in his affidavit stated appellant believed there was something English. somehow Appellant s offensive mother about testified asking that him even to speak preferred to speak Spanish, appellant spoke English. though he Finally, Dr. Nguyen testified that although appellant s clinical record indicated he might have preferred she conduct the evaluation in Spanish, she interviewed him in English because he sp[oke] English perfectly and his desire to speak Spanish resulted from his psychosis. 2 ¶5 As appellee points out, every reasonable attempt to evaluate a person in his or her preferred language does not 2 While the record reflects appellant also spoke Spanish, a psychiatrist who met with appellant three months before his hearing reported appellant insisted on speaking Spanish only and did so quite poorly. Dr. Nguyen s affidavit also stated appellant sp[oke] Spanish quite poorly. 3 mandate the evaluation must be made in the preferred language, when, as here, the individual clearly speaks and understands English. reject Under these circumstances, we agree with appellee and appellant s argument Dr. Nguyen s evaluation violated A.R.S. § 36-501(12)(b) or deprived him of due process. CONCLUSION ¶6 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court s involuntary mental-health treatment order. /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge 4

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.