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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

IN RE LEONAUNCE T.

No. 1 CA-JV 18-0026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JV198671

The Honorable Lisa Ann VandenBerg, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Advocate’s Office, Phoenix

By Mara J. Siegel

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 4-17-2018
IN RE LEONAUNCE T.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

W I N T H R O P, Presiding Judge:

¶1 Leonaunce T. (“Appellant”) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

requiring him to register as a sex offender. Appellant’s counsel has filed a 

brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); State v. 

Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969); and Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 

Ariz. 484, 486 (App. 1989), stating she has searched the record on appeal 

and has found no arguable question of law. Appellant’s counsel therefore 

requests that we review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 

196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews the entire

record for reversible error). We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 8-235(A) (2014)1 and Arizona 

Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103(A). For the following reasons, 

we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

¶2 On February 5, 2015, Appellant pleaded guilty to amended

count 1, indecent exposure (minor under 15), a class six undesignated 

felony. See A.R.S. § 13-1402 (Supp. 2017). The juvenile court found

Appellant delinquent and ordered him to comply with probation terms, 

including participating in a psychosexual evaluation and any other exams 

ordered by the juvenile probation officer. The court, however, deferred its 

finding as to whether Appellant was required to register as a sex offender.

¶3 Over the course of two years, the juvenile court found that 

Appellant violated the terms of his probation numerous times. The court, 

 

1 We cite the current version of applicable statutes because no 

revisions material to this decision have occurred.

2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict 

and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant. See State v. Kiper, 

181 Ariz. 62, 64 (App. 1994).
IN RE LEONAUNCE T.

Decision of the Court

3

however, continued to defer its decision as to whether Appellant was 

required to register as a sex offender. One month before Appellant turned 

eighteen the court held a hearing to determine whether Appellant was 

required to register as a sex offender and heard from the juvenile probation 

officer, the State, the guardian ad litem, and Appellant’s counsel. At the 

hearing, the probation officer recommended that Appellant register as a sex 

offender because he failed to successfully complete the terms of his 

probation. The probation officer further stated that Appellant failed to 

comply with the terms of his probation by smoking marijuana, contacting 

his girlfriend, and exhibiting sexualized behavior. The State agreed with 

the probation officer’s recommendation and requested that Appellant

register as a sex offender because he was unable to successfully complete 

his probation obligations.

¶4 In his defense, Appellant’s guardian ad litem and counsel 

argued that if Appellant registered as a sex offender it would serve as a 

punishment and defeat the rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile justice 

system. Appellant’s counsel additionally argued that Appellant should not 

register as a sex offender because he was assessed as a lowmoderate/moderate risk for committing additional crimes and because he

had shown improvement and maturity over the course of his probation 

term. The juvenile court took the matter under advisement and ultimately 

ruled that Appellant was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to 

A.R.S. § 13-3821(D) (Supp. 2017). Appellant timely appealed.

ANALYSIS

¶5 A juvenile court has discretion in requiring a juvenile

adjudicated delinquent of indecent exposure to register as a sex offender

until the age of twenty-five. See A.R.S. § 13-3821(D). We will only overturn 

the juvenile court’s order if the court based its decision on legally incorrect 

reasons or if the court’s ruling amounts to a denial of justice. State v. Davis,

226 Ariz. 97, 102-03, ¶ 23 (App. 2010) (citation omitted). See also In re 

Nickolas T., 223 Ariz. 403, 406, ¶ 10 (App. 2010) (“[T]he legislature has given 

the juvenile court the discretion in the first instance to determine whether a 

juvenile offender should be required to register as a sex offender.”).

¶6 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. Appellant

was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. The court’s 

order that Appellant register as a sex offender was a legally permissible

exercise of the court’s discretion and is supported by the evidence. The 

proceedings were conducted in compliance with Appellant’s constitutional 
IN RE LEONAUNCE T.

Decision of the Court

4

and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile 

Court.

¶7 After the filing of this decision, counsel’s obligations 

pertaining to Appellant’s representation in this appeal have ended. 

Counsel need do no more than inform Appellant of the status of the appeal 

and of his future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue 

appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State 

v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Appellant has thirty days from the 

date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(A).

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm the juvenile court’s order requiring Appellant to 

register as a sex offender until the age of twenty-five.