In re MH 2009-001142
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 2009-001142 ) ) ) ) _______________________________________ ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 06-15-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-MH 09-0066 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication - Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. MH 2009-001142 The Honorable Patricia Arnold, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Richard M. Romley, Acting Maricopa County Attorney By Anne C. Longo, Deputy County Attorney and Bruce P. White, 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, a danger to self, persistently or acutely disabled, in need of psychiatric treatment, unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment. the court ordered inpatient and appellant outpatient ( treatment order ). to undergo treatment not a to and Accordingly, combination exceed 365 of days In entering the treatment order, counsel for appellant and petitioner expressly stipulated to admit the two evaluating physicians affidavits and the 72-hour medication affidavit in lieu of in-person testimony. asked by the appellant s superior counsel court said it whether was. this The When specifically was court, the agreement, thus, did not engage in a colloquy with appellant to determine whether she knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the physicians in-person testimony. ¶2 On appeal, appellant asks us to vacate the treatment order, asserting the court was required to engage in a colloquy with her personally voluntarily, evaluating and to decide intelligently physicians testify whether waived in she had her right person. She knowingly, to have the asserts the court s failure to do so violated statutory requirements and deprived her of due process. We disagree for the reasons stated in In re MH 2009-001264, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶¶ 7-11, 229 P.3d 1012, 1014-15 (App. 2010). In that case, the court rejected 2 this argument on facts virtually identical to those presented here. ¶3 Appellant secondarily contends petitioner failed to satisfactorily establish the evaluating physicians credentials. Not only did appellant fail to object on this basis in the superior court and thus has waived this argument, see Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., 198 Ariz. 283, 286, ¶ 9, 9 P.3d 314, 317 (2000), but the record includes sufficient proof of the physicians credentials. Each physician s affidavit was signed, dated, subscribed and sworn before a notary public and stated the psychiatric affiant is matters. a physician Each and affidavit is also experienced identified in the examining physician as an M.D. 1 ¶4 In virtually In the qualifications. 16. re same MH 2009-001264, argument the regarding appellant the raised physicians ___ Ariz. at ___, ¶¶ 12-15, 229 P.3d at 1015- We rejected that argument there and reject it here. 1 One of the examining physicians is a psychiatric resident. The record contains a resident supervision affidavit executed by the resident s supervising physician in accordance with the requirements of Arizona Revised Statutes section 36-501(12)(a) (2009). 3 CONCLUSION ¶5 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the treatment order. /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge /s/ _________________________________ PHILIP HALL, 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.
