Pastor Isaac Noriega: Ruled Incompetent — Yet Still Preaching

• Facebook
• Instagram
• Twitter
• TikTok

---

Pastor Isaac Noriega at his April 27, 2026 competency hearing. Still from KVOA News 4 Tucson’s pool video.

Since our last update on April 19, 2026, the April 27 hearing we had been watching finally arrived — and it produced the most significant ruling in Pastor Isaac Noriega’s case to date. After a third evaluation, this one neuropsychological, the court found Noriega incompetent to stand trial but restorable, and committed him to an out-of-custody treatment program. A review hearing is set for July 27, 2026.

Meanwhile, the parallel case against Golden Dawn Tabernacle congregant Jose Mora continued to move through the court on a separate track — including a denied bid for release, a granted media-coverage request, and two more resets that pushed his pretrial conference into the summer.

Here is everything that has happened.

🎧 Listen to this report

Audio narration of this update (about 28 minutes); the hearing section plays as the original KVOA courtroom recording.

---

April 27, 2026: Noriega Appears in Person — Found Incompetent but Restorable

On April 27, 2026, Judge Mark Hotchkiss held the long-awaited Rule 11 competency hearing in Courtroom 386 (Division LF) of Pima County Superior Court.

For only the second time since the case began — and his first appearance since the initial hearing last year — Isaac Noriega, 83, appeared in person, out of custody. Noriega had appeared at that first hearing, but his attorney then obtained a waiver of his appearance, and he skipped every proceeding since. This time he had no such option: the court declined to permit a waiver of appearance for the Rule 11 competency hearing and required him to appear in person. In other words, his return to court was compelled by the judge — not a voluntary choice.

Images from the Hearing

Present in court were:

• Isaac Noriega — Defendant, present and out of custody
• Douglas W. Taylor, Sr., Esq. — Defense counsel
• Bradley K. Roach, Esq. — Deputy County Attorney for the State
• Hon. Mark Hotchkiss — Presiding judge
• Victim representatives — present in the courtroom

The Court Allows Media Coverage — Over Defense Objection

Before taking up competency, the court addressed media. Representatives wished to record the proceedings, though the minute entry notes that no written request had been received by the court or counsel. Defense attorney Douglas Taylor argued against it.

Judge Hotchkiss ruled that the factors governing media coverage weighed in favor of allowing it, citing the broad right of media access to events in the courthouse and finding that any potential prejudice to the defendant was not so substantial as to meaningfully limit the media’s right of access. With no position taken by the State and over the objection of defense counsel, the court ordered that media representatives could capture video and photographs of the hearing — but prohibited any recording or photography of the victim representatives.

The Competency Finding

The incompetency finding rested on the consistent conclusions of three court-appointed Rule 11 evaluators: Dr. Bradley R. Johnson, M.D. (report dated December 10, 2025), Dr. Sean Flynn, Ph.D. (examination January 7, 2026), and—after the court ordered a third, neuropsychological examination—Dr. Marisa Menchola, Ph.D. (examination March 20, 2026). All three concluded that Noriega is incompetent to stand trial; Dr. Menchola declined to offer an opinion on whether Noriega could be restored to competency. Separately, Noriega’s own neurologist, Dr. Hadipour Niktarash, submitted a collateral report dated October 27, 2025.

Counsel stipulated to the court determining competency based on the written evaluation reports, pursuant to Rule 11.5(a). Having considered those reports, Judge Hotchkiss made the following findings:

• The Court found Noriega incompetent — that he is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings and is unable to assist counsel in his defense, and is therefore incompetent pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4510.
• The Court further found that he is restorable — that there is a substantial probability Noriega can be restored to competency within the timeframe permitted under Arizona law, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4510(C).

As reported by the Arizona Daily Star, the third examiner — neuropsychologist Dr. Marisa Menchola — made no recommendation as to whether Noriega could be restored to competency. Judge Hotchkiss explained the legal standard that drove his ruling: under Arizona law, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that a defendant cannot be restored, the court must place him into a restoration program. The judge found that, based on the reports — and most notably Dr. Menchola’s neuropsychological report — no such clear and convincing evidence existed.

What the Court Ordered

• IT IS ORDERED committing Noriega to the out-of-custody Pima County Restoration to Competency (RTC) Program to receive any treatment necessary to restore his competency.
• Noriega is ordered to attend all appointments necessary for the restoration process. Failure to attend or cooperate is cause to take him into custody for in-custody restoration at the Pima County Jail.
• A Review Hearing is set for July 27, 2026, at 9:00 AM, in Division LF. The RTC program supervisor must submit a written status report to the Mental Health Clinical Liaison one week before that hearing — or earlier if treatment concludes that competency has been restored, or that there is no substantial probability of restoration within 15 months.
• Noriega’s presence may be waived at the next hearing, and he was admonished to maintain contact with his defense counsel.

In plain English: The case against Noriega is not dismissed, and it is not over. The court did not accept the position that he can never face these charges. Instead, it found that he is not currently able to stand trial but can likely be restored to competency through treatment — and ordered him into a program designed to do exactly that. If his competency is restored, the criminal proceedings resume. Arizona law allows up to 15 months for that process. The out-of-custody designation means he undergoes the program without being jailed — so long as he attends his appointments.

---

Transcript of the Hearing

Transcribed from our recording of the hearing using automated transcription and lightly edited for clarity. Speaker labels are our best identification; brief unclear passages are noted. This is not a certified court transcript.

THE COURT (Judge Hotchkiss): [The recording begins as the court is mid-ruling, having reviewed the three evaluators’ reports.] …Mr. Taylor, what is the defense’s position on this?

MR. TAYLOR (Defense): …It’s unfortunate that the neuropsychologist [Dr. Marisa Menchola] would not provide an opinion as to restorability—I was dismayed about that—but, that being as it may, I think the court is on the right path. Given our choices, and given what I think the court is going to do anyway, I would so stipulate to out-of-custody restoration.

THE COURT: Mr. Roach, the State needs to be heard on that point.

MR. ROACH (State): Judge, normally I would not. In this case, it’s been reported to me that Mr. Noriega, up to fairly recently, was still giving lengthy sermons at his church—which seems to me to be directly in contradiction to him being incompetent. And what I’ve not been able to do is identify anyone who could come testify to that.

MR. ROACH (State): I’m asked to set a hearing right now, but could I ask again — if we reset it for a week… That would give me the opportunity to see if I can actually document if that is true, because I think that would change things if that was actually happening. And I just have not been able to find a witness.

[A brief passage here is difficult to make out; it concerns the legal standard for competency and the sermon evidence.]

THE COURT (Judge Hotchkiss): Well, I agree. I understand what the legal standard is — I think Mr. Roach does too. There is frequently a case, not just in this case but in general, where collateral materials can be potentially illuminating to either restoration staff or to evaluating doctors as to whether or not someone is or is not competent. So I am confident that the restoration team would be interested in having those materials if, in fact, they can be procured.

THE COURT: So, Mr. Roach, I guess you’re asking for a one-week continuance. I would be inclined not to grant a continuance unless the state is considering challenging the reports as they currently stand. If the state is acquiescing to the placement into out-of-custody restoration but believes there may be additional information that could be worthwhile for the restoration team to consider, then I’m inclined to make orders consistent with placing him into out-of-custody restoration today, and grant the state leave to provide any collateral it seeks to provide to the clinical coordinator, who can then provide it to the restoration team. So, Mr. Roach, what is the state’s specific position on that issue?

MR. ROACH (State): Given the consistency of all three evaluators, we have no objection to putting him in the program, and then I will attempt to gather more information that would be provided if necessary.

THE COURT: All righty. Mr. Taylor, anything further before I make the findings?

MR. TAYLOR (Defense): No, I know what the court’s findings will be, so I will request that my client be permitted to waive his appearance throughout the pendency of the out-of-custody RTC proceedings until such time as he actually gets into the program. As we know, it’s quite some time of a wait, so I don’t want him to keep coming in here.

THE COURT: I’m not going to provide a blanket waiver of his need to come to court, but I will excuse him from the next review hearing date I set, because that’s the same courtesy I afford to other defendants on the wait list. I know that I’ve done that with other gentlemen that I’ve seen this morning. So you can basically set out July 27th, and then I’m happy to hear you out on whether I ought to continue that approach thereafter.

THE COURT: So let me make some findings. Counsel having stipulated to the court determining competency based upon the written reports, pursuant to Rule 11.5(a), and having considered those reports, the court finds that the defendant is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings and/or is unable to assist in his defense, and is therefore incompetent pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4510. The court further finds that there is a substantial probability that the defendant can be restored to competency within the timeframe permitted under Arizona law. Therefore, it is ordered committing the defendant to the out-of-custody Pima County Restoration to Competency program. It is further ordered setting a review hearing on Monday, July 27th, at 9 o’clock in the morning.

THE COURT (addressing the defendant): So, Mr. Noriega, I’m not sure if you’re able to hear me or how well you’re following along… Well, Mr. Taylor can let you know what all happened today. I set another hearing for you about three months from now… Okay? Thank you. Anything further?

MR. TAYLOR (Defense): No, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you all very much.

---

Case Status Summary — Isaac Noriega

Case Number	CR20252710-001
Defendant	Isaac Noriega
Charges	False Report – Child Abuse/Neglect (Class 6 Felony); False Report – Child Abuse/Neglect (Class 1 Misdemeanor), under A.R.S. § 13-3620(A)
Rule 11 Judge	Mark Hotchkiss (Division LF)
Prosecutor	Bradley K. Roach, Esq.
Defense Counsel	Douglas W. Taylor, Sr., Esq.
April 27, 2026 Ruling	Incompetent but restorable (A.R.S. § 13-4510); committed to out-of-custody RTC Program
Restoration Window	Up to 15 months under Arizona law
Next Hearing	Review Hearing — July 27, 2026, at 9:00 AM, Courtroom 386 (Division LF)

---

The Jose Mora Case: Bond Denied, Coverage Granted, Hearings Reset

While Noriega’s competency question was resolved on April 27, the criminal cases against Jose Mora — who faces a total of ten felony counts across two separate cases — continued to advance on their own track before Judge Kellie Johnson in Division 26. Mora remains in custody, and a Spanish-language interpreter has appeared at each of his hearings.

As the Arizona Daily Star has noted, the charges against both men trace in part to a 2024 Arizona Daily Star/Lee Enterprises investigation — reporting in which Mora publicly acknowledged inappropriate contact with a child, and former church members said Noriega had been aware of abuse by Mora but did not report it. Both men have pleaded not guilty. The contrast in their custody status is stark: the congregant, Mora, remains jailed, while the pastor, Noriega, has remained out of custody throughout.

March 27, 2026: Cases Reset to April 27

At a combined hearing on March 27, 2026, defense attorney Carter Santini conferred with the court on the status of both matters and requested a continuance to further negotiate with the State. The court affirmed the pretrial conference in the new case (CR20260731-001) for April 27 and reset the pretrial conference in the original case (CR20251749-001) to the same date.

April 1–3, 2026: Defense Moves for Release; the State Objects

On April 1, 2026, Santini filed a Motion to Modify Conditions of Release under Rule 7.4(b), asking the court to release Mora on his own recognizance, into the third-party custody of his wife, or on the least onerous conditions that would assure his appearance. The motion argued that Mora has lived in Tucson for 28 years, has no prior criminal record or history of failure to appear, previously worked as a handyman, and that the allegations are old. The same day, the defense also filed a motion to continue the Rule 12.9 deadline — the deadline to file a motion challenging the grand jury proceedings — which the court extended to April 27, 2026.

On April 3, 2026, the State filed its objection. Deputy County Attorney Brad Roach argued that Mora is charged in two separate indictments with the sexual abuse of three different children and, if convicted, would face the equivalent of a life sentence — and that the risk of life imprisonment alone justifies bail to ensure his appearance. The State’s filing added one further point: that, upon information and belief, Mora has an immigration hold at the Pima County Jail, and that if released, federal authorities would take him into custody to begin deportation proceedings.

April 14, 2026: Motion to Modify Release Denied

At a hearing on April 14, 2026, both sides argued the motion. After a bench conference and argument from both counsel, Judge Johnson denied the motion, finding that — based on the nature of the offenses and the circumstances — it was appropriate to keep the existing conditions in place. Mora’s bonds were affirmed and he remains in custody. At the same hearing, the pretrial conference was reset from April 27 to May 1, 2026.

April 28, 2026: Court Grants KVOA Media Coverage

On April 28, 2026, Judge Johnson issued an in-chambers order granting a request by KVOA to cover a proceeding with a camera capturing both video and audio. Consistent with a prior ruling, the court granted the request subject to limitations: KVOA may not record or photograph Mora or any victim, and may not photograph any victim in attendance without the court’s express permission. The court placed no limitation on audio recording. The order noted that photographing Mora while in custody in the jury box could affect both his right to a fair trial and his safety at the jail.

May 1, 2026: Pretrial Conference Reset to June 26

At the May 1, 2026 pretrial conference, Santini informed the court that the defense is awaiting the results of its independent investigation and moved to reset the hearing. With no objection, the court reset the pretrial conference to June 26, 2026, at 9:00 AM, in Division 26. Mora waived his speedy-trial time, and time was excluded.

---

Case Status Summary — Jose Mora

Case Numbers	CR20260731-001 (new case); CR20251749-001 (original case)
Defendant	Jose Mora (DOB 8/18/1967)
Total Charges	10 felony counts across two cases — Class 2 Felonies / Dangerous Crimes Against Children
Judge	Hon. Kellie Johnson (Division 26)
Prosecutor	Bradley K. Roach, Esq.
Defense Counsel	Carter J. Santini, Pima County Public Defender
Custody Status	In custody, Pima County Adult Detention Center; reported immigration hold
April 14, 2026	Motion to Modify Conditions of Release denied; bonds affirmed
Rule 12.9 Deadline	Extended to April 27, 2026
Next Hearing	Pretrial Conference — June 26, 2026, at 9:00 AM, Division 26

---

What This Means

For the better part of a year, the central question in Isaac Noriega’s case was whether a man who continued to lead Golden Dawn Tabernacle multiple times a week — preaching, counseling, and overseeing church affairs — could simultaneously be too impaired to understand a courtroom. On April 27, the court answered the narrow legal version of that question: on the written evaluations, it found him not presently competent to stand trial.

But the court did not end the case. It found him restorable, and ordered him into treatment with the express goal of bringing him to competency so that the prosecution can proceed. The charges remain. The clock — up to 15 months — is now running on restoration, with the first checkpoint on July 27.

Two details from that hearing stand out. First, after months of waived appearances, the court compelled Noriega to appear in person — refusing the waiver his lawyer had relied on. Second, the court allowed the proceedings to be filmed over his attorney’s objection, finding that the public’s right to see this case outweighed that objection.

Even so, one contradiction sits at the center of this case — and it only grows larger. While his attorney told the court that Pastor Isaac Noriega is too cognitively impaired, citing claimed dementia, to understand a courtroom, he has — by the accounts we have documented — continued to lead Golden Dawn Tabernacle from the pulpit several times a week: preaching at length, counseling members, and directing the church’s affairs. A man presented to a judge as unable to follow a hearing is, in the same stretch of days, presented to his congregation as their unquestioned spiritual authority. It goes directly to Pastor Noriega’s integrity — and it does not stand alone: his credibility was already in serious question over the allegations that he knew of child sexual abuse within his church and failed to report it. The competency claim does not put those questions to rest; it deepens them.

This is not only our observation. The State raised the same contradiction on the record: as the Arizona Daily Star reported, Deputy County Attorney Brad Roach told the court he may present evidence that Noriega has continued giving lengthy sermons — conduct Roach described as “in direct contradiction to him being incompetent.” Roach noted he had not yet identified a witness willing to come to court and testify to it, and Judge Hotchkiss left the door open to hearing that evidence at a future proceeding.

On the Mora side, the divergence is striking. While Noriega remains out of custody and in a treatment program, Jose Mora remains jailed, his request for release denied, and his cases methodically advancing toward trial. The State has signaled the stakes plainly — the equivalent of a life sentence — and disclosed that a federal immigration hold awaits him regardless of the outcome here.

The convergence we anticipated for April 27 ultimately split: one case reached a decisive ruling, the other was continued. But both remain very much alive, and both will be back in court this summer.

We will continue to cover both cases as they develop.

---

Upcoming Hearings

Isaac Noriega — Restoration Review Hearing
When: Monday, July 27, 2026, at 9:00 AM
Where: Courtroom 386 (Division LF), Pima County Superior Court, 110 W. Congress St., Tucson, AZ
Judge: Hon. Mark Hotchkiss
Case: CR20252710-001
(Note: Noriega’s presence may be waived at this hearing.)

Jose Mora — Pretrial Conference
When: Friday, June 26, 2026, at 9:00 AM
Where: Division 26, Pima County Superior Court, 110 W. Congress St., Tucson, AZ
Judge: Hon. Kellie Johnson
Case: CR20260731-001 / CR20251749-001

Both hearings are open to the public. We encourage anyone who is able to attend.

---

Press Coverage & Further Reading

---

Do you have any information you’d like to share about this topic? Feel free to comment below, or you can contact us directly at our Contact Us page or via our social media accounts below.

• Facebook
• Instagram
• Twitter
• TikTok