A. If the superintendent of the state hospital or the director of the department of health services determines that the person's mental disorder has so changed that the person is not likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative, the superintendent or director shall allow the person to petition the court for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative. The person shall serve the petition on the court and the attorney for the state. The court shall hold a hearing on the petition for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative within forty-five days after receiving the petition. The court may continue the hearing on the request of either party and a showing of good cause or on its own motion if the respondent will not be substantially prejudiced. The county attorney or the attorney general shall represent the state at the hearing and may request that the petitioner be examined by a competent professional selected by the county attorney or the attorney general. The attorney for the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner's mental disorder has not changed and that the petitioner remains a danger to others and is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative or unconditionally discharged.
B. This section does not prohibit the committed person from annually petitioning the court for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative without the approval of the superintendent of the state hospital or the director of the department of health services. The director of the department of health services shall give annual written notice to the committed person of the person's right to petition the court for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative without the approval of the superintendent or director. The notice shall contain a waiver of rights. The director shall submit the notice and waiver to the court with the annual examination report.
C. The committed person may be present at the hearing. The county attorney or the attorney general may request that the person be examined by a competent professional selected by the attorney for the state. The committed person may retain and the court on request of an indigent person may appoint a competent professional. The attorney for the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the person's mental disorder has not changed and that the person remains a danger to others and is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative. If the state does not meet its burden of proof, the person shall be discharged from treatment.
D. If at the conclusion of a hearing the court finds that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that the conditions prescribed in section 36-3711 have been met, the court shall grant the state's motion for a judgment on the issue of conditional release to a less restrictive alternative.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · 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 6× “section 36-3709, each time requiring the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual continues to suffer from a mental disorder, "remains a danger to others and is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if conditionally released to a less restrictive…”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 36-3709(B) (permitting committed person to annually petition court for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative).”
In Re Leon G., 59 P.3d 779 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 2× “The SVP must be examined annually to determine whether commitment remains appropriate.”
In Re Commitment of Frankovitch, 121 P.3d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “136, §§ 6 and 7 through 19, and three statutes were added. 1998 Ariz.”
In Re Thomas R., 233 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 5× “¶ 25 Further, A.R.S. § 36-3709(A) recognizes that an adjudication of a person’s mental disorder can change because the section allows for less restrictive alternatives if it is determined that a person is not likely to engage in acts of sexual violence.”
State v. Hoggatt, 18 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“A hearing on a petition for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative pursuant to § 36-3709. 4. A hearing on a petition for discharge pursuant to § 36-3714.”
In Re Pima Cnty. Mental Health Cause No. A20020026, 352 P.3d 921 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “¶ 7 In the context of a hearing on a petition for change of status filed after an annual review or on a petition for discharge, the state is required to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the SVP’s mental disorder is unchanged and he or she remains a danger.”
In Re the Commitment of Wilfredo Jaramillo, 278 P.3d 1284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“§§ 36-3709, 36-3714. Nothing in the statutes governing those procedures, however, expressly gives a trial court authority to prescribe a specific treatment plan.”
In Re the Commitment of Robert Flemming, 131 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“He contends his rights under the SVP Act include the right to “care, supervision and treatment” at the ACPTC in accordance with § 36-3707(13); the right to be evaluated annually pursuant to § 36-3708; and the right to petition annually for release to a less restrictive,…”
In Re Fredrick B. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 9× “The superior court cited § 36-3709 and concluded that Frederick was ineligible for either conditional release to a less restrictive alternative or unconditional discharge.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3709(A) — 6 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“section 36-3709, each time requiring the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual continues to suffer from a mental disorder, "remains a danger to others and is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if conditionally released to a less restrictive…”
In Re Thomas R., 233 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“¶ 25 Further, A.R.S. § 36-3709(A) recognizes that an adjudication of a person’s mental disorder can change because the section allows for less restrictive alternatives if it is determined that a person is not likely to engage in acts of sexual violence.”
In Re Pima Cnty. Mental Health Cause No. A20020026, 352 P.3d 921 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“¶ 7 In the context of a hearing on a petition for change of status filed after an annual review or on a petition for discharge, the state is required to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the SVP’s mental disorder is unchanged and he or she remains a danger.”
In Re Fredrick B. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“The superior court cited § 36-3709 and concluded that Frederick was ineligible for either conditional release to a less restrictive alternative or unconditional discharge.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3709(B) — 5 cases
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“See A.R.S. § 36-3709(B) (permitting committed person to annually petition court for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative).”
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“section 36-3709, each time requiring the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual continues to suffer from a mental disorder, "remains a danger to others and is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if conditionally released to a less restrictive…”
In Re Fredrick B. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“The superior court cited § 36-3709 and concluded that Frederick was ineligible for either conditional release to a less restrictive alternative or unconditional discharge.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3709(C) — 2 cases
In Re Thomas R., 233 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“¶ 25 Further, A.R.S. § 36-3709(A) recognizes that an adjudication of a person’s mental disorder can change because the section allows for less restrictive alternatives if it is determined that a person is not likely to engage in acts of sexual violence.”
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.