In Re: Ms2022-000001

── In Re: Ms2022-000001 ── Case No.: 1 CA-MH 25-0151 SP Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 06, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: MS2022-000001 No. 1 CA-MH 25-0151 SP FILED 04-06-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. MS2022-000001 The Honorable Dean M. Fink, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Joseph Cada Counsel for Appellee State of Arizona Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Lindsay Ficklin Counsel for Appellant MS2022-000001  IN RE: MS2022-000001 Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. F A B I A N, Judge: ¶1 A jury found that A.R. was a sexually violent person (“SVP”) under Arizona’s Sexually Violent Persons Act (“the Act”) and he was committed to the Arizona Community Protection and Treatment Center (“the Center”). A.R. petitioned for release to a less restrictive alternative (“LRA”). The superior court denied the petition, finding the qualifying mental disorder had not changed. ¶2 On appeal, A.R. argues the superior court erred by permitting the State to present evidence of a new mental disorder—antisocial personality disorder (“ASPD”)—at the change of status hearing. Because the superior court denied the LRA petition based expressly on the qualifying mental disorder, not ASPD, A.R. suffered no prejudice. This Court affirms. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 In February 2022, near the end of A.R.’s sentence for a sexually violent offense, the State petitioned to commit A.R. as an SVP under the Act, A.R.S. §§ 36-3701 to 3717, based on a report from a mental health expert (“screening expert”) who diagnosed A.R. with pedophilic disorder and indicated A.R. had “antisocial traits/orientation.” ¶4 In August 2024, after a trial that included testimony from the screening expert and the admission of that expert’s report, the jury found that A.R. was an SVP. The court committed A.R. to the Center for full confinement, noting “the underlying qualifying mental disorder in this case is pedophilic disorder, non-exclusive type, attraction to both.” See A.R.S. § 36-3707(B)(1). This Court affirmed the commitment in a separate appeal. See In re MS2022-000001, 1 CA-MH 24-0168 SP (Ariz. App. Sept. 25, 2025) (mem. decision). ¶5 As required under A.R.S. § 36-3710(D), the court ordered the Center to investigate whether A.R. was ready for an LRA by November 18, 2  IN RE: MS2022-000001 Decision of the Court 2024. In November 2024, a mental health expert contracted by the Center (“the Center expert”) conducted an evaluation of A.R. and prepared a written report. She recommended against an LRA based on diagnoses of the qualifying mental disorder and ASPD. ¶6 In December 2024, A.R. petitioned for release to the Center’s LRA program. See A.R.S. § 36-3709(B). Before the evidentiary hearing, A.R. moved to preclude evidence related to his ASPD diagnosis. After oral argument, the court denied the motion, explaining: [A]lthough there was no diagnosis of [ASPD], there was certainly discussion of those traits, and those traits were part of [the screening expert’s] ultimate conclusion. . . . [T]he argument would certainly have been much stronger—or we might be in a d