In re MH 2009-001550

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 MH2009-001550 The court, Presiding Judge No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 05-04-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN 1 CA-MH 09-0063 DEPARTMENT A Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH-2009-001550 DECISION ORDER Maurice Portley and Judges Lawrence F. Winthrop and Margaret H. Downie participating, has considered Appellant s appeal of the superior court s order for involuntary mental pursuant Arizona to health treatment. Revised Statutes 2101(K) (2003) and 36-546.01 (2009). issue in required her to timely engage appeal in a - that colloquy We have ( A.R.S. ) jurisdiction sections 12- Appellant raises a single the with superior her court personally was to determine whether she knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her testify. right to have the physicians who evaluated her We addressed this issue in a recent opinion and, for the same reasons expressed therein, we affirm. See In re MH 2009-001264, 1 CA-MH 09-0048 (Ariz. App. April 27, 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 72-hour testimony. engage in medication affidavit See id. at *3, ¶ 4. a colloquy directly in lieu of in-person The court, however, did not with Appellant to determine whether she knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the physicians in-person testimony. The parties entered no other stipulations, and the hearing 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, 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, and Appellant timely appealed, raising the single, In re 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.