Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 01 May 2024 12:13 PM by  Kevin Heade
R-24-0011 Petition to Amend Rule 11.3(a)(5)(C), Rules of Criminal Procedure
 1 Replies
Author Messages
Jennifer Albright
New Member
Posts:6 New Member

--
09 Jan 2024 02:48 PM
    David K. Byers
    Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 W. Washington, Suite 411
    Phoenix, AZ 85007-3327
    Phone: (602) 452-3301
    [email protected]

    Petitioner seeks to amend Rule 11.3(a)(5)(C) pertaining to qualifications of competency examiners to remove the requirement that the court-approved training program be a minimum of 16 hours and replace the requirement of attendance at (in-person) the training program to completion of the court-approved training program. This Rule Petition was drafted after review of the current court-approved training program and will allow for redesign and modernization the training program in accordance with current law, best practices and national standards around competency.

    Filed: January 9, 2024

    Would amend Rule 11.3(a)(5)(C) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to modify the training requirements for qualifying to be a competency examiner.

    Comments must be submitted by no later than Wednesday, May 1, 2024, and any reply by a petitioner must be submitted no later than Monday, June 3, 2024.
    Attachments
    Kevin Heade
    New Member
    Posts:10 New Member

    --
    01 May 2024 12:13 PM

    Kevin D. Heade
    AZ State Bar # 029909
    Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice
    P.O. Box 2457
    Florence, AZ 85132
    (520) 866-7199
    [email protected]



    Pursuant to Rule 28(e) of the Arizona Supreme Court Rules, Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice (“AACJ”) respectfully submits this comment supporting the proposed amendment to Rule 11.3(a)(5)(C) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure with the understanding that the proposal is part of a larger plan to offer more in-depth and specialized training to experts who are entrusted with assessing the competence of the accused.

    The attached comment provides further explanation.
    Attachments


    ---