Cited by

But a “court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision on incorrect legal principles.” ¶ 11 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 10 (App. 2006)).

4 JOHNSON v. HON HARTSELL/STATE Opinion of the Court the denial of the motion to dismiss is not appealable, ¶ 10 (App. 2008), and the legal issues presented are novel and of statewide significance, ¶ 4 (App. 2004).

The adult statutes and rules “require restoration treatment unless the evidence shows the defendant will not become competent within twenty-one months.”

A new expert must be able to explain that restoration efforts were effective, and the trial court must make findings to that effect.” quoting Nowell v. Hintze, No. 1 CA-SA 06-0236, 3 (decision order filed Mar.

¶ 21 , (“If a [criminal] defendant has not regained competency within twenty-one months of the original finding of incompeteney, no further attempts at restoration are allowed.”).

3 C. ¶ 15 , as a basis to affirm the trial court.

DISCUSSION ¶ 7 ¶ 21 , we held that the trial court may not order the accused committed for restoration treatment for longer than twenty-one months when he is found incompetent to stand trial.

§ 13-4517(1) gives the court the authority to “[rjemand the defendant to the custody of the department of health services for the institution of civil commitment proceedings pursuant to title 36, chapter 5.”