In Re: Dakota D.

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

IN RE: DAKOTA D.

No. 1 CA-MH 24-0128
FILED 04-01-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Apache County
No. S0100MH202400007
The Honorable Michael D. Latham, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Apache County Attorney’s Office, St. Johns
By Celeste M. Robertson
Counsel for Appellee

Law Office of Elizabeth M. Hale, Lakeside
By Elizabeth M. Hale
Counsel for Appellant
 IN RE: DAKOTA D.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Dakota D. (“Patient”) appeals the superior court’s order
committing him for involuntary mental health treatment. Patient argues
the order should be vacated because he was not permitted to testify or call
witnesses. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Patient’s mother called a crisis team after Patient stopped
eating, believing his food was poisoned. Patient had lost 60 pounds in five
months. Patient’s mother reported that he had also threatened his family,
screamed at children, and banged on walls around the house. Patient
refused to submit to an evaluation or to be admitted for treatment, so the
hospital obtained a court order to admit Patient for an emergency
evaluation.

¶3 Patient was evaluated by two psychiatrists, and each offered
a probable diagnosis of schizophrenia. One doctor concluded that Patient
had engaged in bizarre behavior and had paranoid delusions. The other
noted Patient had a history of schizophrenia and “present[ed] with
increased psychosis, paranoia and delusions.”

¶4 One of the doctors filed a petition for court-ordered
treatment, attaching his and the other doctor’s affidavits. The petition
requested that the court order Patient to undergo combined inpatient and
outpatient treatment.

¶5 The court held a hearing on the petition and heard testimony
from both doctors, as well as a nurse and a social worker at the hospital.
The superior court found Patient to be a danger to himself, a danger to
others, and persistently or acutely disabled due to a mental disorder. The
court ordered combined inpatient and outpatient treatment for no more
than 365 days, with inpatient treatment not to exceed 180 days. Patient
timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 36-546.01 and §
12-2101(A)(10)(a).

2
 IN RE: DAKOTA D.
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶6 Because involuntary treatment strongly implicates a patient’s
liberty interests, “statutory requirements must be strictly construed and
followed.” In re MH 2008-002596, 223 Ariz. 32, 35, ¶ 12 (App. 2009). We
review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. In re MH 2001-001139,
203 Ariz. 351, 353, ¶ 8 (App. 2002). But we review the facts underlying the
civil commitment order in the light most favorable to upholding it and will
not set aside the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous. MH 2008-
002596, 223 Ariz. at 35, ¶ 12.

¶7 Under A.R.S. § 36-539(B), a “patient’s attorney may subpoena
and cross-examine witnesses and present evidence” at a civil commitment
hearing. Patient argues he was denied his right to testify and call a witness.
He was not.

¶8 First, Patient did not assert his right to testify. Patient merely
expressed a “willing[ness] to answer questions,” not a desire to testify. Cf.
State v. Allie, 147 Ariz. 320, 328 (1985) (noting that the “right [to testify] is
subject to defendant’s making his desire to testify known at trial”). Patient
was also represented by counsel, who did not call Patient as a witness or
otherwise indicate that Patient wanted to testify.

¶9 Second, Patient did not attempt to call any witnesses.
Patient’s attorney had mentioned a potential witness that Patient informed
him about the morning of the hearing. According to the attorney, Patient
claimed there was a doctor who would testify that Patient did not need
medication. But the attorney did not identify the doctor or seem to know
who the doctor was. The attorney did not request a continuance to identify,
interview, or subpoena the doctor, and when the court asked if he had any
witnesses, the attorney responded, “no.” Accordingly, Patient has not
established that he was denied his right to testify or to call witnesses.

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

3