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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JAMES JOSEPH KNOCHEL, Appellant,

v.

WEST YAVAPAI GUIDANCE CLINIC, Appellee.

No. 1 CA-HC 17-0001

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CV201600447

The Honorable Cele Hancock, Judge

APPEAL DISMISSED

COUNSEL

James Joseph Knochel, Prescott

Appellant

The Ledbetter Law Firm P.L.C., Cottonwood

By James E. Ledbetter, Tosca G. Henry

Counsel for Appellee
KNOCHEL v. WYGC

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Patricia K. Norris1 delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

N O R R I S, Judge:

¶1 Appellant, James J. Knochel, appeals from the superior court’s 

order dismissing without prejudice his “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

with Supporting Memorandum of Law” (“Petition”) on behalf of E.M.2

because he failed to comply with the procedural requirements of A.R.S. § 

36-546(A)(2).

3 For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

¶2 We have an independent duty to determine whether we have 

jurisdiction over an appeal. Grand v. Nacchio, 214 Ariz. 9, 15, ¶ 12, 147 P.3d 

763, 769 (App. 2006). Generally, a party may only appeal a final judgement.

A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1) (2016); Baker v. Bradley, 231 Ariz. 475, 479, ¶ 9, 296 

P.3d 1011, 1015 (App. 2013) (court of appeals jurisdiction “limited to 

 

1The Honorable Patricia K. Norris, Retired Judge of the Court 

of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant 

to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.

2Although labeled a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” the 

Petition expressly did not request E.M.’s release from court ordered mental 

health treatment at the West Yavapai Guidance Clinic (“WYGC”). Instead, 

the Petition requested the court to “investigate” E.M.’s mental health 

treatment under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 36-546 (2016).

Accordingly, as did the superior court, we have treated the Petition as a 

request for relief under A.R.S. § 36-546.

3Section 36-546(A)(2) requires that a request for release “shall 

be delivered to the medical director of the agency” providing treatment.

The record before us contains no evidence that Knochel’s request was 

delivered to the medical director of WYGC—the agency providing 

treatment. Although the Legislature amended this statute in 2017, after 

Knochel filed the Petition, the amendments did not change these 

requirements. 
KNOCHEL v. WYGC

Decision of the Court

3

appeals from final judgements which dispose of all claims and parties”)

(citations omitted). A final judgment dismissing an action with prejudice is 

appealable, but an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not. 

Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., 240 Ariz. 597, 600, ¶ 7, 382 P.3d 812, 815 

(App. 2016) (order dismissing without prejudice is not a final judgement 

under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1) because plaintiff can refile action and has 

nothing to appeal) (citation and quotation omitted).

¶3 Here, the superior court’s order dismissed the Petition 

“without prejudice to the proper procedural filings.” Accordingly, we lack 

jurisdiction over this appeal.

CONCLUSION

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Knochel’s appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. We deny WYGC’s request for an award of attorneys’

fees on appeal because it did not identify a substantive basis for its request 

as required by Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”)

21(a)(2). Nevertheless, we award WYGC’s costs on appeal contingent upon 

its compliance with ARCAP 21(b).