In State v. Silva, 222 Ariz. 457, 461,18, 216 P.3d 1203, 1207 (App. 2009) recognized that when the criminal charges are not dismissed, the court retains "continuing authority under Rule 11.6(a)(4) to rule on the issue of defendant's competency after the twenty-one month limit on restoration treatment orders" because civil commitment or guardianship proceedings may act as "further restoration treatment." And A.R.S. 13-4517(3) and Rule 11.5(b)(2)(iii) provide that when charges are dismissed, the dismissal must be "without prejudice," which necessarily implies that the state may refile charges if post-dismissal events suggest that the defendant has regained competency. See also A.R.S. 36-541.01(C) (requiring mental health institutions to notify prosecuting agency in advance of discharge of civilly committed patient to outpatient treatment when charges against patient involving sexual offenses or death or serious physical injury were dismissed pursuant to A.R.S. 13-4517).