Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3710 (2026)

Conditional release to a less restrictive alternative; conditions; reports; review

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. If the court determines that conditional release to a less restrictive alternative is in the best interest of the person and will adequately protect the community and the court determines that the minimum conditions under section 36-3711 are met, the court shall enter judgment and order the person's conditional release to a less restrictive alternative.

B. The court may impose any additional conditions on the person that the court determines are necessary to ensure the person's compliance with treatment and to protect the community. If the court finds that conditions do not exist that will both ensure the person's compliance with treatment and protect the community, the court shall remand the person to the custody of the superintendent of the state hospital for care, supervision or treatment in a licensed facility that is under the supervision of the superintendent.

C. If the provider that is designated to provide inpatient or outpatient treatment or to monitor or supervise any other terms and conditions of a person's placement in a less restrictive alternative is not the state hospital, the provider shall agree in writing to provide the treatment.

D. Before the court authorizes a person's conditional release to a less restrictive alternative, the court shall impose any conditions on the person that the court determines are necessary to ensure the safety of the community. The conditions shall include that prior to release to a less restrictive alternative, a person shall be required to submit to ninety days of inpatient evaluation at the Arizona state hospital. At the discretion of the superintendent of the state hospital, the duration of the evaluation period may be less than ninety days. The court shall order the superintendent of the state hospital to investigate the less restrictive alternative and to submit additional conditions to the court. The court shall give a copy of the conditions of release to the person and to any designated service provider. Other conditions may include any of the following:

1. Specification of a residence.

2. Prohibition on any contact with potential or past victims.

3. Prohibition on the use of alcohol and other drugs.

4. Supervision by the department of health services or the county probation department if the person is serving a term of probation.

5. A requirement that the person remain in this state unless the person receives prior authorization from the court.

6. Other conditions that the court or the superintendent of the state hospital determines are in the best interest of the person or others.

E. Following a determination that a person's release to a less restrictive alternative is warranted and after considering the recommendation regarding the duration and amount of treatment by the superintendent of the state hospital, the court shall require as a condition of release to a less restrictive alternative, that the person participate in outpatient treatment. The outpatient supervision and treatment may include monitoring a person by use of a polygraph or plethysmograph or both. The treatment shall continue until the court orders a change in the person's treatment requirements or the person is discharged pursuant to section 36-3714.

F. Each month or as otherwise directed by the court, each designated service provider shall submit a report that states if the person is complying with the terms and conditions of the conditional release to a less restrictive alternative to:

1. The court.

2. The facility from which the person was released.

3. The county attorney in the county where the person was found to be a sexually violent person or to the attorney general.

G. The court shall review the case of each person who is conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative within one year after the person's release and thereafter on motion of either party or the superintendent of the state hospital or on the court's own motion until the person is discharged. At a case review, the court shall determine only if the person shall continue to be conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative. In making its determination, the court shall consider the periodic reports that are submitted to the court pursuant to subsection F of this section and the opinions of the superintendent of the state hospital and any other competent professional.

H. If a person is conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative, the department of health services shall notify the department of public safety of the person's release so that the department of public safety can commence any notification process as provided in section 13-3825.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: State v. Hoggatt, 18 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Hoggatt, 18 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “” § 36-3707(B); see also A.R.S. §§ 36-3710 and 36-3711. ¶ 2 DHS asserts and we agree that it has no equally plain, speedy, or adequate means by appeal of obtaining review of the respondent judge’s interlocutory orders.”

In Re the Commitment of Wilfredo Jaramillo, 278 P.3d 1284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “” § 36-3710(D). Those conditions may include those "the court or the superintendent of the state hospital determines are in the best interest of the person or others.”

In Re Pima Cnty. Mental Health Cause No. A20020026, 352 P.3d 921 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “¶ 2 Sanchez requested release to less-restrictive alternative conditions pursuant to §§ 36-3710 and 36-3711, in 2012. The trial court noted that Sanchez’s “response to sex offender treatment has been on a constant upward swing since approximately 2008” and that his doctors’…”

In Re the Commitment of Robert Flemming, 131 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Were Flemming evaluated and declared eligible for release to a less restrictive alternative placement pursuant to § 36-3710 or for discharge pursuant to § 36-3714, he would still, of course, remain in prison until the expiration of his criminal sentence.”

In Re: Ms 2015-000003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 9× “argues that the superior court’s denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing and opportunity to present expert testimony violated his constitutional due process rights to challenge the necessity of conditions proposed by the State under A.R.S. § 36-3710. We review…”

In Re Fredrick B. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-3710(F). If the department of health services’ director or the state hospital’s superintendent determines that the SVP’s disorder has so changed that he or she is not likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if conditionally released to a less restrictive…”

In Re: Ms2009-000010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 36-3710 (directing conditional release to a less restrictive alternative if it is in the SVP’s best interest and the public is adequately protected).”

In Re: Ms2022-000001 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “¶5 As required under A.R.S. § 36-3710(D), the court ordered the Center to investigate whether A.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3710(B) — 1 case

In Re: Ms 2015-000003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “argues that the superior court’s denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing and opportunity to present expert testimony violated his constitutional due process rights to challenge the necessity of conditions proposed by the State under A.R.S. § 36-3710. We review…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3710(D) — 3 cases

In Re the Commitment of Wilfredo Jaramillo, 278 P.3d 1284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “” § 36-3710(D). Those conditions may include those "the court or the superintendent of the state hospital determines are in the best interest of the person or others.”

In Re: Ms2022-000001 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “¶5 As required under A.R.S. § 36-3710(D), the court ordered the Center to investigate whether A.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3710(D)(6) — 1 case

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3710(E) — 1 case

In Re Pima Cnty. Mental Health Cause No. A20020026, 352 P.3d 921 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “¶ 2 Sanchez requested release to less-restrictive alternative conditions pursuant to §§ 36-3710 and 36-3711, in 2012. The trial court noted that Sanchez’s “response to sex offender treatment has been on a constant upward swing since approximately 2008” and that his doctors’…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3710(F) — 1 case

In Re Fredrick B. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “A.R.S. § 36-3710(F). If the department of health services’ director or the state hospital’s superintendent determines that the SVP’s disorder has so changed that he or she is not likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if conditionally released to a less restrictive…”

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.