A. Before a sexually violent person is released from confinement, the following persons may file a petition in superior court alleging that the person is a sexually violent person and stating sufficient facts to support that allegation:
1. The county attorney in the county in which a person was found incompetent to stand trial of, found guilty except insane of or convicted of a sexually violent offense.
2. The county attorney in the county in which the person will be released or the attorney general if the person was found incompetent to stand trial of, found guilty except insane of or convicted of a sexually violent offense in another jurisdiction outside the state.
B. The Arizona rules of evidence and the Arizona rules of civil procedure apply to proceedings under this article. The court may admit evidence of past acts that would constitute a sexual offense pursuant to section 13-1420 and the Arizona rules of evidence.
C. The person who is named in the petition is entitled to assistance of counsel at any proceeding that is conducted pursuant to this article. If the person is indigent, the court shall appoint counsel to assist the person. The county board of supervisors may fix a reasonable amount to be paid by the county for the services of an appointed attorney.
D. The court's jurisdiction over a person who is civilly committed pursuant to this article continues until the person is discharged by the court.
E. At any hearing concerning conditions of detention, commitment or treatment at a licensed facility under the supervision of the superintendent of the Arizona state hospital, a person who is detained or committed pursuant to this article shall show that the procedures or actions of the licensed facility have no reasonable basis in fact or law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case:
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 18× “See A.R.S. §§ 36-3704, 36-3705. If such an order issues, the SVP is detained in a secure facility.”
Arizona State Hosp. v. Klein, 296 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 36-3704(B) (“The Arizona rules of evidence and the Arizona rules of civil procedure apply to proceedings under this article.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-3704(A). If, after reviewing the petition, the court finds probable cause to believe the person is sexually violent, it then orders that the person be detained pending trial.”
In Re Leon G., 59 P.3d 779 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-3704. ¶ 12 Upon receipt of such petition, the superior court judge determines whether probable cause exists to believe that the person is an SVP.”
State v. Cofield, 107 P.3d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “See A.R.S. §§ 36-3704, -3705, and -3701(7) (2003).”
In Re the Commitment of Jaramillo, 176 P.3d 28 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 5× “” § 36-3704(B). Jaramillo acknowledges that, by enacting this statute, the legislature intended that prior acts be admissible but contends the rules of evidence do not permit admission of prior acts to prove a person’s propensity to commit a future act.”
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state, 487 P.3d 256 (Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 2× “The criminal case may not be dismissed until the competent professional’s report is provided to the court and the parties and a hearing is held pursuant to subsection C of this section or the county attorney files a petition pursuant to § 36-3704. ¶10 Garcia argues: (1) §…”
Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona, 314 P.3d 814 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 5× “§ 36-3706, and because he did not receive appointment of counsel, a professional evaluation, or a prompt probable cause hearing in conformity with AR.S. §§ 36-3704(0, 36-3705(0, and 36-3705(G).”
In Re the Commitment of Wilfredo Jaramillo, 278 P.3d 1284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “Moreover, although § 36-3704(D) continues a trial court’s jurisdiction over a committed person “until the person is discharged by the court,” Jaramillo cites no authority, and we find none, suggesting that subsection gives a trial court authority not otherwise contemplated by…”
Ugalde v. Burke, 65 P.3d 103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “§ 36-3706, which states: Within one hundred twenty days after a petition is filed pursuant to § 36-3704, the court shall conduct a trial to determine if the person named in the petition is a sexually violent person____ The judge may continue the trial at the request of either…”
State v. Hoggatt, 18 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Woods and Flick are the subjects of petitions filed by the Cochise County Attorney’s Office pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3704, alleging that they are sexually violent persons (SVP).”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 7 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Near the time he was set to be released from the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections, the State petitioned for Clements’ civil commitment as a sexually violent person.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3704(A) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“A.R.S. § 36-3704(A). If, after reviewing the petition, the court finds probable cause to believe the person is sexually violent, it then orders that the person be detained pending trial.”
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“See A.R.S. §§ 36-3704, 36-3705. If such an order issues, the SVP is detained in a secure facility.”
State v. Cofield, 107 P.3d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“See A.R.S. §§ 36-3704, -3705, and -3701(7) (2003).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3704(A)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3704(B) — 13 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“See A.R.S. §§ 36-3704, 36-3705. If such an order issues, the SVP is detained in a secure facility.”
Arizona State Hosp. v. Klein, 296 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“A.R.S. § 36-3704(B) (“The Arizona rules of evidence and the Arizona rules of civil procedure apply to proceedings under this article.”
In Re the Commitment of Jaramillo, 176 P.3d 28 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“” § 36-3704(B). Jaramillo acknowledges that, by enacting this statute, the legislature intended that prior acts be admissible but contends the rules of evidence do not permit admission of prior acts to prove a person’s propensity to commit a future act.”
Ugalde v. Burke, 65 P.3d 103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“§ 36-3706, which states: Within one hundred twenty days after a petition is filed pursuant to § 36-3704, the court shall conduct a trial to determine if the person named in the petition is a sexually violent person____ The judge may continue the trial at the request of either…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3704(C) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3704(D) — 2 cases
In Re the Commitment of Wilfredo Jaramillo, 278 P.3d 1284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“Moreover, although § 36-3704(D) continues a trial court’s jurisdiction over a committed person “until the person is discharged by the court,” Jaramillo cites no authority, and we find none, suggesting that subsection gives a trial court authority not otherwise contemplated by…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3704(E) — 1 case
In Re the Commitment of Wilfredo Jaramillo, 278 P.3d 1284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“Moreover, although § 36-3704(D) continues a trial court’s jurisdiction over a committed person “until the person is discharged by the court,” Jaramillo cites no authority, and we find none, suggesting that subsection gives a trial court authority not otherwise contemplated by…”
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.