13-4517. Incompetent defendants; disposition; evaluator costs
A. If the court finds that a defendant is incompetent to stand trial and that there is no substantial probability that the defendant will regain competency within twenty-one months after the date of the original finding of incompetency, any party may request that the court:
1. Remand the defendant to an evaluating agency for the institution of civil commitment proceedings pursuant to title 36, chapter 5. If the defendant is remanded, the prosecutor shall file a petition for evaluation and provide any known criminal history for the defendant.
2. Appoint a guardian ad litem to investigate whether the defendant is or may be in need of a guardian, a conservator or any other protective order pursuant to title 14, chapter 5.
3. Release the defendant from custody and dismiss the charges against the defendant without prejudice.
4. If the defendant is charged with a serious offense as defined in section 13-706, order a trial to determine if the defendant is dangerous and should be involuntarily committed pursuant to section 13-4521. If the defendant is not represented by an attorney and is indigent, the court shall appoint an attorney to represent the defendant in all proceedings under section 13-4521 and any further proceedings under title 36, chapter 40.
B. If the court enters an order pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1, 2 or 4 of this section, the court may also order an assessment of the defendant's eligibility for private insurance or public benefits that may be applied to the expenses of the defendant's medically necessary maintenance and treatment, including services pursuant to title 36, chapter 29, state-only behavioral health services, title XVIII services and Medicare part D prescription drug benefits, supplemental security income and supplemental security disability income.
C. The court may retain jurisdiction over the defendant until the defendant is committed for treatment pursuant to section 13-4521 or title 36, chapter 5 or a guardian is appointed pursuant to title 14, chapter 5.
D. If the court remands the defendant for the institution of civil commitment proceedings pursuant to title 36, chapter 5 and the court is notified that the defendant has not had a civil commitment evaluation or if the court enters an order pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 4 of this section, the court, if it has retained jurisdiction, may order the sheriff to take the defendant into custody so that the court may explore options pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2, 3 or 4 of this section.
E. If the court is notified that the defendant has not been ordered into treatment pursuant to title 36, chapter 5 and the court has retained jurisdiction, the court may order the sheriff to take the defendant into custody so that the court may explore options pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2, 3 or 4 of this section.
F. A guardian ad litem who is appointed pursuant to this section and who determines that protective action is appropriate shall initiate and prosecute proceedings for the appointment of a guardian, a conservator or any other protective order pursuant to title 14, chapter 5. The court, on the request of the guardian ad litem or on its own motion, may order an independent evaluation of the defendant by a licensed physician, a licensed psychologist or a registered nurse to assess whether the defendant is an incapacitated person as defined in section 14-5101 or is a person in need of protection as prescribed in section 14-5401, subsection A, paragraph 2.
G. A guardian ad litem and any other evaluator who is appointed pursuant to this section is entitled to reasonable compensation for the work performed as a guardian ad litem or evaluator. If the defendant is indigent, the court may order the reasonable compensation to be a county expense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
In re MH 2008-000028, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
In re MH 2008-000028, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 18× “The purpose of these safeguards is to identify correctly those individuals who are at risk, “as a result of a mental disorder,” of being “a danger to self or others, persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled” and to avoid improper deprivation of an individual’s…”
Nowell v. Rees, 199 P.3d 654 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 5× “5(b)(2); see also A.R.S. § 13-4517. Thus, under some circumstances restoration treatment will not be ordered, but in most eases, such as this one, restoration must be attempted.”
State v. Silva, 216 P.3d 1203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “5(b)(2) also provides that if “there is no substantial probability that the defendant will become competent within 21 months of the date found incompetent,” upon the request of any party, the trial court must remand the defendant for civil commitment proceedings, appoint a…”
In Re Mh2010-002348, 268 P.3d 392 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 9× “Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-4517 states in pertinent part: If the court finds that a defendant is incompetent to stand trial and that there is no substantial probability that the defendant will regain competency within twenty-one months after dle date of the original finding…”
Rider v. Garcia, 312 P.3d 113 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “AR.S. § 13-4517; Ariz. R.Crim. P. 11.5(b)(2).”
In Re Eddie O., 253 P.3d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-4517 (2010). Most importantly for our purposes, the Nowell court reserved the very issue that we now address.”
In Re Mh2015-003266, 382 P.3d 72 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“”) § 13-4517; Ariz. R. Crim. P. II. 1 The superior court ordered a Title 36 psychiatric evaluation, which led to these civil commitment proceedings.”
Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state (Ariz. 2025).
· cites it 48× “Further, § 13-4517 evinces no “language that shows a legislative purpose” to accomplish retroactivity.”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 20× “The purpose of these safeguards is to identify correctly those individuals who are at risk, "as a result of a mental disorder," of being "a danger to self or others, persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled" and to avoid improper deprivation of an individual's…”
State v. Bierbrodt (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 31× “§§ 36-3701–3707 with A.R.S. §§ 13-4517, 4521. These safeguards satisfy due process.”
In Re Mh2015-002490, 422 P.3d 1043 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 8× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-4517(A)(1) (authorizing the court to “[r]emand the defendant to an evaluating agency for the institution of civil commitment proceedings” if it finds he is “incompetent to stand trial and that there is no substantial probability that the defendant will regain…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4517(1) — 4 cases
In re MH 2008-000028, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“The purpose of these safeguards is to identify correctly those individuals who are at risk, “as a result of a mental disorder,” of being “a danger to self or others, persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled” and to avoid improper deprivation of an individual’s…”
In Re Mh2010-002348, 268 P.3d 392 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-4517 states in pertinent part: If the court finds that a defendant is incompetent to stand trial and that there is no substantial probability that the defendant will regain competency within twenty-one months after dle date of the original finding…”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“The purpose of these safeguards is to identify correctly those individuals who are at risk, "as a result of a mental disorder," of being "a danger to self or others, persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled" and to avoid improper deprivation of an individual's…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4517(3) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4517(A) — 5 cases
State v. Bierbrodt (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“§§ 36-3701–3707 with A.R.S. §§ 13-4517, 4521. These safeguards satisfy due process.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4517(A)(1) — 3 cases
In Re Mh2015-002490, 422 P.3d 1043 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“See A.R.S. §§ 13-4517(A)(1) (authorizing the court to “[r]emand the defendant to an evaluating agency for the institution of civil commitment proceedings” if it finds he is “incompetent to stand trial and that there is no substantial probability that the defendant will regain…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4517(A)(2) — 1 case
State v. Bierbrodt (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“§§ 36-3701–3707 with A.R.S. §§ 13-4517, 4521. These safeguards satisfy due process.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4517(A)(3) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4517(A)(4) — 4 cases
State v. Bierbrodt (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“§§ 36-3701–3707 with A.R.S. §§ 13-4517, 4521. These safeguards satisfy due process.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4517(B) — 1 case
In Re Mh2015-002490, 422 P.3d 1043 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“See A.R.S. §§ 13-4517(A)(1) (authorizing the court to “[r]emand the defendant to an evaluating agency for the institution of civil commitment proceedings” if it finds he is “incompetent to stand trial and that there is no substantial probability that the defendant will regain…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4517(C) — 3 cases
State v. Bierbrodt (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“§§ 36-3701–3707 with A.R.S. §§ 13-4517, 4521. These safeguards satisfy due process.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4517(E) — 1 case
State v. Bierbrodt (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“§§ 36-3701–3707 with A.R.S. §§ 13-4517, 4521. These safeguards satisfy due process.”
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.