Cited by

See In re MH2010-002637, ¶ 13 (App. 2011) (citing cases).

See In re MH2010-002637, ¶ 13 (App. 2011) (citing cases).

In re MH2010-002637, ¶ 13 (App. 2011).

§ 36-3702(2)]” or “to request a pretrial evidentiary hearing to determine whether Dr. Thornton qualified as a competent professional.” ¶23 “[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a civil commitment patient receive effective assistance of counsel.” In re MH2010-002637, ¶ 30 (App. 2011).

In re MH2010–002637, ¶ 13 (App. 2011).

See In re MH2010–002637, –83 ¶ 33 (App. 2011) (remanding for 2 IN RE: MH2020-002064 Decision of the Court the trial court to consider appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

In re MH2010–002637, ¶ 13 (App. 2011).

*589 Denz , , ¶ 6, 306 P.3d at 100 -01 , quoting In re MH2010-002637 , , ¶ 13, , 86 (App. 2011) ; see also Pandeli , , ¶ 4, 394 P.3d at 7 .

In re MH2010-002637, ¶ 13 (App. 2011) (citation omitted).

In re MH2010-002637, ¶ 18

In doing so, “[w]e view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s judgment,” In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14 , , 1163 (App.2009), but review de novo the application and interpretation of statutes involving involuntary mental health treatment, In re MH2010-002637, ¶ 13

“concedes that the court made a proper inquiry into [him] appearing at the hearing and that the court accommodated him by permitting him to appear telephonically, as required by In re MH2010- 002637.” See MH2010-002637, ¶ 26, (“[W]hen it is not feasible to move the hearing to the patient’s location, assuming the patient desires to attend, the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the patient is unable to appear and participate through some other reasonably feasible means.”)

“[W]e defer to the trial court’s factual findings but review de novo the ultimate legal conclusion.” In re MH2010-002637