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 discharged, the superintendent or director shall allow the person to petition the court for discharge. 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 discharge 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 who is 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 discharged.
B. This section does not prohibit the committed person from annually petitioning the court for discharge 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 discharge 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 discharge hearing. The county attorney or the attorney general may request that the person be examined by a competent professional who is selected by the attorney for the state. The committed person may retain and the court on the 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 discharged. If the state does not meet its burden of proof, the person shall be discharged from treatment.
D. If a person is discharged the department of health services shall notify the department of public safety of the person's discharge so that the department of public safety can commence any notification process as provided in section 13-3825.
Notes of Decisions
Arizona State Hosp. v. Klein, 296 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 12× “served a 10-year prison sentence for attempted molestation of a child, the superior court found he was a sexually violent person under the SVPA and committed him to the Center for treatment.”
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “§ 36-3714(C). The Petitioners ¶ 6 Petitioners are several persons against whom the state has filed SVP petitions.”
In Re Leon G., 59 P.3d 779 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 2× “On September 12, 2002, the Yuma County Superior Court granted Leon's petition for permanent release from the Arizona State Hospital pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3714. Because Leon did not properly preserve his substantive due process challenge and is no longer confined, it appears…”
In Re Commitment of Frankovitch, 121 P.3d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 36-3714(0). He acknowledges Becker testified it was highly probable he would commit future sexually violent acts if”
State v. Hoggatt, 18 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“A hearing on a petition for discharge pursuant to § 36-3714. 5. Any evidentiary hearing in which the presence of a person who is detained or civilly committed pursuant to this article is necessary.”
In Re the Commitment of Robert Flemming, 131 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Flemming’s arrest, conviction, and resulting prison sentence for an assault he committed while confined neither constitute, nor necessitate, his discharge under § 36-3714. ¶ 7 Although Flemming contends the state should dismiss the SVP proceedings while he is incarcerated and…”
State of Arizona v. Hon. Ehrlich/eric Walker, 59 P.3d 779 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 2× “On September 12, 2002, the Yuma County Superior Court granted Leon’s petition for permanent release *18 from the Arizona State Hospital pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3714. Because Leon did not properly preserve his substantive due process challenge and is no longer confined, it…”
In Re Pima Cnty. Mental Health Cause No. A20020026, 352 P.3d 921 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “¶ 8 Sanchez next contends that his therapist, Jennifer Balistreri, was unqualified to determine whether he “continue[d] to have a mental disorder” because she is not a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist, which he argues is required by §§ 36-3702 and 36-3708.”
State v. Bernstein, 317 P.3d 630 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “702 "applies to expert testimony offered in a discharge hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3714”); McMurtry, 231 Ariz. at 251, ¶ 17 , 293 P.”
In Re the Commitment of Wilfredo Jaramillo, 278 P.3d 1284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“Jerry Day and, after his examination, Jaram-illo filed a second request for trial, asking to be discharged or, alternatively, for his less-restrictive alternative “conditions [to] be modified to be compatible with those that have been recommended by Dr.”
In Re: Thomas C. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 11× “” A.R.S. § 36-3714 (C). ¶18 Based on Dr. Petty’s testimony, including the admission of her detailed Annual Progress Review, and other exhibits, the superior court properly found beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas’s mental disorder had not changed, he remained a danger to…”
In Re Fredrick B. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 8× “¶16 A.R.S. § 36-3714 requires that a discharge petition, whether filed by the SVP with the state’s permission or in exercise of his or her independent annual right, be decided after an evidentiary hearing at which the state bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3714(0) — 1 case
In Re Commitment of Frankovitch, 121 P.3d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“” A.R.S. § 36-3714(0). He acknowledges Becker testified it was highly probable he would commit future sexually violent acts if”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3714(A) — 4 cases
In Re Pima Cnty. Mental Health Cause No. A20020026, 352 P.3d 921 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“¶ 8 Sanchez next contends that his therapist, Jennifer Balistreri, was unqualified to determine whether he “continue[d] to have a mental disorder” because she is not a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist, which he argues is required by §§ 36-3702 and 36-3708.”
In Re the Commitment of Robert Flemming, 131 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“Flemming’s arrest, conviction, and resulting prison sentence for an assault he committed while confined neither constitute, nor necessitate, his discharge under § 36-3714. ¶ 7 Although Flemming contends the state should dismiss the SVP proceedings while he is incarcerated and…”
In Re Fredrick B. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“¶16 A.R.S. § 36-3714 requires that a discharge petition, whether filed by the SVP with the state’s permission or in exercise of his or her independent annual right, be decided after an evidentiary hearing at which the state bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3714(B) — 2 cases
In Re the Commitment of Wilfredo Jaramillo, 278 P.3d 1284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“Jerry Day and, after his examination, Jaram-illo filed a second request for trial, asking to be discharged or, alternatively, for his less-restrictive alternative “conditions [to] be modified to be compatible with those that have been recommended by Dr.”
In Re: Thomas C. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“” A.R.S. § 36-3714 (C). ¶18 Based on Dr. Petty’s testimony, including the admission of her detailed Annual Progress Review, and other exhibits, the superior court properly found beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas’s mental disorder had not changed, he remained a danger to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3714(C) — 4 cases
Arizona State Hosp. v. Klein, 296 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“served a 10-year prison sentence for attempted molestation of a child, the superior court found he was a sexually violent person under the SVPA and committed him to the Center for treatment.”
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“§ 36-3714(C). The Petitioners ¶ 6 Petitioners are several persons against whom the state has filed SVP petitions.”
In Re: Thomas C. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“” A.R.S. § 36-3714 (C). ¶18 Based on Dr. Petty’s testimony, including the admission of her detailed Annual Progress Review, and other exhibits, the superior court properly found beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas’s mental disorder had not changed, he remained a danger to…”
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.