Appellant remains subject to the trial court’s order but is currently receiving treatment on an out-patient basis. 3 . In the criminal context, we will review error alleged for the first time on appeal under a fundamental error analysis. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19, 115 P.3d 601, 608 (2005). However, fundamental error analysis is rarely used in the civil context. Williams v. Thude, 188 Ariz. 257, 260, 934 P.2d 1349, 1352 (1997). Civil commitment hearings are not criminal proceedings. In re MH-2008-000867, 225 Ariz. 178, 180-81, ¶ 8, 236 P.3d 405, 407-08 (2010). Given the liberty interests at stake in civil commitment proceedings, we will review the issue of the trial court’s duty to inquire into remote participation by the Appellant without resort t 816, 819 (1982) (<HOLDING>), and Mental Health of K.G.F., 29 P.3d at 492,
holding that the defendant was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel when a codefendants plea bargain including a promise to testify against the defendant was negotiated by the law partner of the defendants counsel recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding a criminal defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel during a plea process holding when counsels acts and omissions reduce his role to one approaching that of a neutral observer a defendant is denied the effective assistance of counsel holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel