Adams v. Griffin

• Docket Number: 2 CA-SA 2023-0072
• Decision Date: 30 November 2023
• Citation: 540 P.3d 1221
• Parties: Patricia Ann ADAMS, Petitioner, v. Hon. Brenden J. GRIFFIN, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF PIMA, Respondent, and The State of Arizona, Real Party in Interest.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

540 P.3d 1221

Patricia Ann ADAMS, Petitioner,

v.Hon. Brenden J. GRIFFIN, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF PIMA, Respondent,andThe State of Arizona, Real Party in Interest.

No. 2 CA-SA 2023-0072

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Filed November 30, 2023

Mary Trejo, City of Tucson Public Defender's Office, By Marianne Vaiana, Associate Public Defender and Kristina Bohn, Supervising City, Public Defender, Tucson, Counsel for Petitioner

Michael G. Rankin, Tucson City Attorney's Office, By Alan L. Merritt, Deputy City Attorney and Mari L. Worman, Senior Assistant, Prosecuting City Attorney, Tucson, Counsel for Real Party in Interest

Judge Kellyauthored the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Brearcliffe and Judge O'Neil concurred.

OPINION

KELLY, Judge:

¶1 This special action involves a challenge to a ruling of the Tucson City Court mental health judge dismissing charges against Patricia Adams, who has repeatedly been found incompetent to stand trial.The parties dispute the meaning and effect of A.R.S. § 13-4504, specifically whether the city court properly dismissed the charges under that provision or should have transferred the matter to the superior court for a competency evaluation.For the reasons that follow, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶2Patricia Adams was arrested in August 2022, at which time there were multiple misdemeanor charges pending against her in various Tucson City Courtcases.Adams filed a motion to dismiss the charges pursuant to § 13-4504, noting that she had previously been found incompetent to stand trial, and not restorable to competence, three times in the past, most recently in August 2018.The state responded that there were reasonable grounds for a new competency examination based on Adams having received mental health services under title 36 since her last incompetency determination.The state asked that the matter be transferred to the superior court for a competency examination, expressing "concern that if th[e City]Court dismisse[d]" the charges, it lacked the authority "to order the initiation of civil commitment proceedings" or a guardianship pursuant to § 13-4504(B).

¶3 The city court rejected the state's arguments and dismissed the charges without prejudice.Noting that Adams was "subject to an order for court-ordered treatment,"the court concluded it did not need to "order or request that any agency initiate civil commitment proceedings," and declined to issue orders pursuant to § 13-4504(B).The state appealed from that decision.

¶4 On appeal in the superior court, the state argued the city court had "incorrectly interpreted A.R.S. § 13-4504" and "exceeded its jurisdiction when it acknowledged there were reasonable grounds to question Adams's competence to stand trial but refused to transfer the cases to Superior Court."Although acknowledging the city court had not actually ordered it to initiate guardianship proceedings, the state further asserted the city court could not do so.¹The respondentsuperior court judge determined the city court"lacked jurisdiction" to conduct hearings under § 13-4504(A)andRule 11.2(f), Ariz. R. Crim. P.He remanded the matter to the city court to determine if reasonable grounds existed for further competency proceedings, and if so, to transfer the matter to superior court for an evaluation.Adams's petition for special action relief with this court followed.

Jurisdiction

¶5"The decision to accept or reject special action jurisdiction is highly discretionary."Cicoria v. Cole , 222 Ariz. 428, ¶ 4, 215 P.3d 402(App.2009);see alsoAriz. R. P.Spec. Act. 3 bar committee note ("The special action requests extraordinary relief, and acceptance of jurisdiction of a special action is highly discretionary with the court to which the application is made.").This proceeding originated in the city court, and Adams therefore has no right of appeal beyond the superior court.SeeA.R.S. § 22-375(B).Further, special action jurisdiction is appropriate when, as the parties assert here, the question presented is a purely legal one.SeeBlake v. Schwartz , 202 Ariz. 120, ¶ 7, 42 P.3d 6(App.2002).Accordingly, we exercise our discretion and accept jurisdiction.

Discussion

¶6 Adams argues the respondentsuperior court judge improperly "reversed the [city court's] determination that reasonable grounds for further Rule 11 examinations d[id] not exist" and improperly interpreted § 13-4504(A).The state contends the city court's ruling under § 13-4504(A) was essentially an incompetency determination, which it lacked the authority to make.As relevant here, on special action review, this court must determine whether the respondent"failed ... to perform a duty required by law as to which he has no discretion,""has proceeded ... without or in excess of jurisdiction or legal authority," or abused his discretion.Ariz. R. P.Spec. Act.3.When reviewing an order dismissing criminal charges, this court assesses whether the dismissing court abused its discretion.SeeState v. Medina , 190 Ariz. 418, 420, 949 P.2d 507, 509(App.1997).

¶7 Our review of Adams's petition involves the intersection of two sets of statutes and Rule 11, Ariz. R. Crim. P.We address these in turn and, because the language of the statutes and rules is plain, it controls the outcome here.See4QTKIDZ, LLC v. HNT Holdings, LLC , 253 Ariz. 382, ¶ 5, 513 P.3d 1106(2022).First, the criminal code sets forth various provisions relating to a defendant's competency to stand trial in title 13,chapter 41.SeeA.R.S. §§ 13-4501 to 13-4519.A defendant cannot "be tried, convicted, sentenced or punished for an offense if the court determines that the person is incompetent to stand trial."§ 13-4502.After a defendant is charged, the process to determine competency begins with the filing of a request for a competency evaluation, which may be filed by "any party" or may be initiated by "the court on its own motion."§ 13-4503(A).The court may request the assistance of a mental health expert to determine if reasonable grounds for an examination exist.§ 13-4503(B).Generally, once a court determines that such grounds exist, the superior court has exclusive jurisdiction to hold competency hearings.§ 13-4503(C).A limited jurisdiction court may "exercise jurisdiction over a competency hearing in a misdemeanor case" arising in such a court only if the presiding judge of the superior court has authorized it to do so. § 13-4503(D).

¶8 If the court initially finds the defendant incompetent, it must order treatment for restoration of competency "unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant will not be restored to competency within fifteen months."§ 13-4510(C).When a treatment order is issued, it is valid for 180 days or until the treating agency reports either that the defendant has been restored or is not substantially probable to regain competency within twenty-one months, the charges are dismissed, or the maximum sentence has expired.§ 13-4512(I);see also§ 13-4514.If the court determines there is not a substantial probability that the defendant will regain competency within twenty-one months, it is to "proceed pursuant to [A.R.S.] § 13-4517."§ 13-4514(F).Otherwise, an order issued under §§ 13-4512 or 13-4514 remains in effect for not more than twenty-one months or the maximum possible sentence.§ 13-4515(A).

¶9 If the court proceeds under § 13-4517, any party may request that the court dismiss the charges, remand the defendant to an evaluating agency "for the institution of civil commitment proceedings," or "[a]ppoint a guardian ad litem."§ 13-4517(A)."If the defendant is remanded, the prosecutor shall file a petition for evaluation ...."§ 13-4517(A)(1).The court may also "retain jurisdiction" over the defendant until commitment under title 36 or appointment of a guardian.§ 13-4517(C);see also§ 13-4517(D)-(E).

¶10 Separate from the process set in motion by a request to determine incompetency under § 13-4503,§ 13-4504(A) provides that, "[n]otwithstanding any law to the contrary," a "court may hold a hearing to dismiss any misdemeanor charge against [an] incompetent person" who "has been previously adjudicated incompetent to stand trial."If the charge is dismissed, "the court may order the prosecutor to initiate civil commitment or guardianship proceedings."§ 13-4504(B).

¶11 Second is the statutory scheme for civil commitments, set forth in title 36,chapter 5.This chapter includes articles for both court-ordered evaluations, A.R.S. §§ 36-520 to 36-531, and court-ordered treatment, A.R.S. §§ 36-532 to 36-544.An application for a court-ordered evaluation may be filed by "[a]ny responsible individual."§ 36-520(A).Upon receiving an application, a screening agency is to provide a prepetition screening and, if it finds reasonable cause to believe the patient should be subject to court-ordered evaluation, file a petition for evaluation.§ 36-521(A)-(D).The county attorney may also file such a petition if ordered by a court to do so. § 36-521(F).If after the evaluation the patient is found to require court-ordered treatment, the evaluating agency or the county attorney is to file a petition for treatment under § 36-533.§ 36-531(A)-(C).

¶12"If a petition for court-ordered evaluation is filed by a prosecutor pursuant to § 13-4517, a prior application for court-ordered evaluation or prescreening is not necessary."§ 36-521(I).And, § 36-531(E) directs that when a prosecutor files a petition pursuant to § 13-4517, and the evaluating agency intends to release the person, the agency must give the "prosecuting agency" notice of that intent.See also§ 36-540(Q)("If the court does not find a person to be in need of treatment and a prosecutor filed a petition pursuant to § 13-4517, the evaluation agency, within twenty-four hours, shall notify the prosecuting agency of its...