In re MH 2010-002524
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 2010-002524 ) ) ) ) ) _______________________________________ ) 1 CA-MH 11-0009 DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/26/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication - Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. MH 2010-002524 The Honorable Michael D. Hintze, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Anne C. Longo and Bruce P. White Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Maricopa County Office of the Legal Defender By Cynthia Dawn Beck, Deputy Legal 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 and unable to accept voluntary treatment. Accordingly, the court ordered Appellant to undergo inpatient treatment not to exceed 180 days ( treatment order ). ¶2 On appeal, Appellant asks us to vacate the treatment order, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Based on our review of the record, we decline to vacate the order. ¶3 First, the appeal is moot; the treatment order has, by its own terms, expired. ¶4 Second, even if not moot, supported by substantial evidence. the treatment order is See generally In re Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592, 182 Ariz. 440, 443, 897 P.2d 742, 745 (App. 1995) (reviewing court will uphold treatment order if supported court s by substantial findings of evidence fact and if only will set clearly aside trial erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence). ¶5 At the hearing, the parties stipulated to the admissibility of the evaluating physicians affidavits in lieu of testimony. 1 their Berkowitz, M.D., 1 stated After examining Appellant was Appellant, very Paul paranoid M. and Although Appellant, through counsel, stipulated to the admissibility of the evaluating physicians affidavits, Appellant did not stipulate to the sufficiency of their testimony, as Appellee suggests. We thus reject Appellee s argument Appellant has waived her right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. 2 described her thought process as very loose and disorganized. He stated Appellant medications was Berkowitz concluded for endorsed erratically Appellant well had as delusional had she had of late and with very poor Appellant herself, that had been been further allegedly taking explained insight. not noncompliant been with Dr. caring treatment recommendations, and was in a psychotic decompensated state. Dr. Berkowitz offered a probable diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified; Mood Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. ¶6 Dr. Berkowitz s evaluation and probable diagnosis of Appellant was consistent with the evaluation diagnosis made by Teejay Tripp, D.O. and probable Dr. Tripp characterized Appellant s thought process as disorganized and described her as being paranoid with delusions. He concluded Appellant lacked insight into her mental illness, as well as into the need and reason for treatment. Dr. Tripp offered a probable diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. ¶7 The two acquaintance witnesses who testified at the hearing further substantiated Appellant s delusional, paranoid status. One acquaintance witness described Appellant as hearing nonexistent nonverbal sounds behavior, and exhibiting while the 3 strange other verbal as acquaintance well as witness described taking her the as proper being dose paranoid of the and being medication unreceptive prescribed for to her symptoms. ¶8 Based on this evidence and the remainder of the record presented to and considered by the superior court, its findings were not clearly erroneous or unsupported foregoing reasons, by any credible affirm the superior evidence. ¶9 For the we court s treatment order. ___/s/_____________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge CONCURRING: _/s/________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, 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.
