Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4510 (2026)

Competency hearing and orders

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Within thirty days after the report is submitted, the court shall hold a hearing to determine a defendant's competency to stand trial. The parties may introduce other evidence regarding the defendant's mental condition or may submit the matter by written stipulation on the expert's report.

B. If the court finds that the defendant is competent to stand trial, the proceedings shall continue without delay.

C. If the court initially finds that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, the court shall order treatment for the restoration of competency unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant will not be restored to competency within fifteen months. The court may extend the restoration treatment by six months if the court determines that the defendant is making progress toward the goal of restoration.

D. All treatment orders issued by the court shall specify the following:

1. The place where the defendant will receive treatment.

2. Transportation to the treatment site.

3. The length of the treatment.

4. Transportation after treatment.

5. The frequency of reports.  

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: State v. Silva, 216 P.3d 1203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Silva, 216 P.3d 1203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 13-4510(B); Ariz. R.Crim. P. 11.”
Nowell v. Rees, 199 P.3d 654 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “This twenty-one month period for restoration efforts is also included in various forms in A.R.S. §§ 13-4510(0), -4512(I)(1), -4514(A)(4) and (F), 41517, and Rule 11.”
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis, 340 P.3d 415 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “, nor A.R.S. § 13-4510 allocate the burden of proof.”
In re MH 2008-000028, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-4510(C). The Rule 11 court ordered Appellant to a Restoration to Competency Program (“RTC”).”
State v. Ibeabuchi, 461 P.3d 432 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “”) section 13-4510(B). ¶7 After Ibeabuchi refused to attend no fewer than eight court hearings, the court ordered Ibeabuchi, who had remained in custody, to be brought to court by all means necessary.”
Johnson v. Hon hartsell/state, 525 P.3d 1091 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-4510(A). If the court finds the defendant is incompetent and not restorable, the court can order an evaluation for civil commitment, appoint a guardian ad litem, or dismiss the defendant’s charges without prejudice.”
State v. Lewis (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “” After considering the experts’ reports, the court found Lewis competent pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4510(B). ¶19 Later, in March 2021, Lewis requested a second examination of his competence to stand trial due to his “recently prescribed mental health medication.”
State v. Sills (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 13-4510(C). ¶4 Restoration proceedings were overseen by Dr.”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-4510(C). The Rule 11 court ordered Appellant to a Restoration to Competency Program ("RTC").”
State v. Roman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “5 and A.R.S. § 13-4510(A) required the trial court to hold a competency hearing within 30 days of receipt of the Rule 11 report.”
State v. Tackett (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “¶5 On February 18, 2014, Tackett was found incompetent to stand trial pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4510 and committed to the Maricopa County Correctional Health Services Restoration (“RTC”) Program.”
State v. Eddins (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “The court then found Appellant competent to stand trial pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4510(B). The second time, the experts’ opinions were split, and the court appointed a third evaluator, who opined that Appellant was likely not competent to stand trial.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4510(0) — 1 case
Nowell v. Rees, 199 P.3d 654 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “This twenty-one month period for restoration efforts is also included in various forms in A.R.S. §§ 13-4510(0), -4512(I)(1), -4514(A)(4) and (F), 41517, and Rule 11.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4510(A) — 2 cases
State v. Roman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “5 and A.R.S. § 13-4510(A) required the trial court to hold a competency hearing within 30 days of receipt of the Rule 11 report.”
Johnson v. Hon hartsell/state, 525 P.3d 1091 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “A.R.S. § 13-4510(A). If the court finds the defendant is incompetent and not restorable, the court can order an evaluation for civil commitment, appoint a guardian ad litem, or dismiss the defendant’s charges without prejudice.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4510(B) — 5 cases
State v. Silva, 216 P.3d 1203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “A.R.S. § 13-4510(B); Ariz. R.Crim. P. 11.”
State v. Ibeabuchi, 461 P.3d 432 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “”) section 13-4510(B). ¶7 After Ibeabuchi refused to attend no fewer than eight court hearings, the court ordered Ibeabuchi, who had remained in custody, to be brought to court by all means necessary.”
State v. Lewis (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “” After considering the experts’ reports, the court found Lewis competent pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4510(B). ¶19 Later, in March 2021, Lewis requested a second examination of his competence to stand trial due to his “recently prescribed mental health medication.”
State v. Eddins (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “The court then found Appellant competent to stand trial pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4510(B). The second time, the experts’ opinions were split, and the court appointed a third evaluator, who opined that Appellant was likely not competent to stand trial.”
Johnson v. Hon hartsell/state, 525 P.3d 1091 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “A.R.S. § 13-4510(A). If the court finds the defendant is incompetent and not restorable, the court can order an evaluation for civil commitment, appoint a guardian ad litem, or dismiss the defendant’s charges without prejudice.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4510(C) — 9 cases
State v. Silva, 216 P.3d 1203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “A.R.S. § 13-4510(B); Ariz. R.Crim. P. 11.”
Nowell v. Rees, 199 P.3d 654 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “This twenty-one month period for restoration efforts is also included in various forms in A.R.S. §§ 13-4510(0), -4512(I)(1), -4514(A)(4) and (F), 41517, and Rule 11.”
In re MH 2008-000028, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “See A.R.S. § 13-4510(C). The Rule 11 court ordered Appellant to a Restoration to Competency Program (“RTC”).”
State v. Sills (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “See A.R.S. § 13-4510(C). ¶4 Restoration proceedings were overseen by Dr.”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “See A.R.S. § 13-4510(C). The Rule 11 court ordered Appellant to a Restoration to Competency Program ("RTC").”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.