In re MH2009-003071
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 MH2009-003071
DIVISION ONE
FILED: 09/27/2011
RUTH A. WILLINGHAM,
CLERK
BY: DLL
1 CA-MH 11-0019
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(Not for Publication –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. MH2009-003071
The Honorable Michael D. Hintze, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
Partners in Recovery, Inc.
by
Steven Wiggs
Attorneys for Appellee
Gilbert
Marty Lieberman, Maricopa County Legal Defender
by
Colin F. Stearns, Deputy Legal Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
Phoenix
P O R T L E Y, Judge
¶1
S.P. 1
appeals
the
trial
court’s
order
granting
the
Application for Continued Treatment of his mental disorder.
For
the reasons that follow, we affirm the court’s order.
1
Initials are used to protect the appellant’s privacy.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2
S.P. was ordered into involuntary treatment for up to
one year on December 18, 2009, after a court determined he was
persistently or acutely disabled and a danger to himself.
year
later,
treatment
S.P.’s
Partners
agency,
in
filed
court-ordered
Recovery
an
(“PIR”),
application
treatment
pursuant
an
seeking
to
alleged
that
S.P.
continued
to
be
outpatient
to
continue
Arizona
Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 36-543(G) (2010).
A
Revised
The application
persistently
or
acutely
disabled and in need of treatment.
The trial court appointed a
public
on
defender
to
represent
S.P.
December
10,
2010,
and
ordered the attorney meet with S.P. and file a report or request
a hearing within three days, as required by A.R.S. § 36-543(G).
¶3
A hearing was requested and set for December 16, 2010.
The hearing was continued one day later, in response to S.P.’s
motion to dismiss, after the trial court learned that he did not
receive timely notice of the hearing and counsel was unable to
contact
conducted
his
on
client
until
December
involuntary treatment.
December
17th
and
14th.
the
court
The
hearing
continued
was
S.P.’s
S.P. appealed, and we have jurisdiction
pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-546.01 (2010).
DISCUSSION
¶4
vacated
S.P.
argues
because
the
that
the
probate
commitment
court
2
lacked
order
should
subject
be
matter
jurisdiction.
Because jurisdiction is a question of law, we
review it de novo.
Duwyenie v. Moran, 220 Ariz. 501, 503, ¶ 7,
207 P.3d 754, 756 (App. 2009).
¶5
Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may
be raised at any point in the proceeding, including on appeal.
State v. Foster, 191 Ariz. 355, 357, ¶ 6, 955 P.2d 993, 995
(App. 1998); Rojas v. Kimble, 89 Ariz. 276, 279, 361 P.2d 403,
406
(1961).
jurisdiction,
If
any
the
order
court
does
issued
is
not
void
have
and
subject
must
be
matter
vacated.
Martin v. Martin, 182 Ariz. 11, 14-15, 893 P.2d 11, 14-15 (App.
1994).
¶6
S.P. argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction
because the petition for continued treatment failed to allege
that he “had been substantially noncompliant with treatment as
required by A.R.S. § 36-543(E).”
He contends that without the
allegation the petition for continued treatment was defective.
We disagree.
¶7
Section
36-543(E)
acutely
disabled
patient
provides
that
who
undergoing
is
a
persistently
or
court-ordered
treatment must have an annual review if the medical director
determines that the patient has been substantially noncompliant
with treatment.
The subsection does not require any specific
language be recited in order to give a trial court jurisdiction
to resolve a petition for continued treatment.
3
Instead, if the
medical director determines that a patient cannot or should not
be released from treatment at the end of the treatment period, a
new petition must be filed.
A.R.S. § 36-542(A)(2) (2010).
The
medical director must also forward the results of the annual
review and a recommendation to the court.
¶8
A.R.S. § 36-543(G).
Here, the medical director ordered an annual review
and subsequently filed a petition, along with the review and his
recommendation, prior to the expiration of the initial treatment
period.
Consequently,
PIR
complied
with
the
statutory
requirements and the trial court had jurisdiction to determine
that the involuntary order needed to be continued pursuant to
A.R.S. § 36-543(H).
CONCLUSION
¶9
Based
on
the
foregoing,
we
affirm
the
continued
treatment order.
/s/
_____________________________
MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge
CONCURRING:
/s/
________________________________
JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge
/s/
________________________________
JOHN C. GEMMILL, 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.
