NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

IN RE: RICHARD M

.

No. 1 CA

- JV 14

- 0128

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JV181735

The Honorable Utiki Spurling Laing

, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office

, Phoenix By Karen Kemper Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Advocate

, Phoenix By Terri Zimmerman

C ounsel for Appell antIN RE: RICHARD M.

Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

B R O W N

, Judge:

¶1 Richard M. appeals the juvenile court’s order requiring him to register as a sex offender. Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In two separate instances during February 2011, when he was age fifteen , Richard was caught exposing himself and masturbating in the presence of women. Richard pled delinquent to two counts of in decent

e xposu re, class 1 misdemeanor s , and one count of a ssault , a class 3 misdemeanor, arising from an unrelated incident. The plea agreement also incorporated A rizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13

- 3821(D) , which gives the juvenile court discr etion to order sex offender registration for juveniles who have committed certain enumerated crimes.

¶3 At the disposition hearing in May 2011 , the juvenile court placed Richard on probation and ordered him to adhere to st andard and

sex offender c onditions of p robation

. The court deferred a decision as to whether Richard would be required to register as a sex offender.

¶4 Due to a probation violation, Richard was placed in the physical custody of Youth Development Institute (“YDI”) in July 2011 and

remained there until he was released to the custody of his mother in August

2013. The YDI discharge report stated that Richard was being discharged because he had received “maximum benefit from the treatment program,”

but needed to “receive support” durin g his transition home. According to

his probation officer, Richard was released from YDI because he wa s no longer making progress in his treatment

. I n addition to the standard and sex offender probation terms, Richard was required to continue treatment

a t an outpatient facility called Resolution Group

.

¶5 Just one month into his treatment at Resolution Group

, Richard was discharged from the program for refusing to attend group
sessions and failing to actively participate in treatment. Richard’sIN RE: RICHARD M.

Decision of the Court

3 probation o fficer filed a petition to revoke probation and a juvenile referral outlining multiple violations of the standard and sex offender probation terms, including failure to return home, failure to report to his surveillance
officer, and failure to remain in sex offender treatment. The court issued a warrant and Richard was detained in September 2013. At the advisory hearing

, Richard admitted to one count of the probation violation petition and the remaining four counts were dismissed

. The court set a disposition hearing for October 2013 to address Richard’s future placement and

services.

¶6 In p reparation for the October hearing

, Richard underwent a psychosexual evaluation

. T he evaluating psychologist reported that

Richard’s risk to reoffend sexually was “moderate

, ” that he continued to struggle with substance abuse and compulsive behaviors, and that Richard’s prior treatment had been a “partial success.” The psychologist

concluded that

, given the limited amount of time before Richard turned eighteen

, Richard would be best served by placement in the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (“A DOJC”) , which could service Richard’s complex social, behavioral, and psychological needs better than a facility with less structure

.

¶7 Richard’s probation officer also acknowledged that ADOJC would be the best placement for Richard because the facility could address as many of Richard’s needs as possible, including substance abuse
treatment and sex offender treatment, in a short amount of time. Upon

recommendation from Richard ’s probation officer and psychologist

, the juvenile court ordered that Richard be committed to ADOJC. T he court also set a status hearing for April 2014 to consider the issue of sex offender registration

.

¶8 Prior to the April 2014 status hearing, ADOJC psychologists

submitted a progress report to the juvenile court evaluating Richard’s psychological functioning and rehabilitation treatment progress, and identifying any risk factors. Because Richard’s evaluation results indicated that Richard was a high risk to reoffend sexually, the psychologists

recommended that Richard be re quired to register as a sex offender. Richard’s probation officer also produced Richard’s Most Current Information Report (“MCI” ) in which the probation officer and ADOJC recommended that Richard be required to register as a sex offender. The

MCI also reported that Richard had “ not been successful ” at ADOJC

.

¶9 After considering the MCI, the psychological progress report, arguments of counsel, and statements from Richard and his mother, theIN RE: RICHARD M.

Decision of the Court

4 juvenile court ordered that Richard register as a sex offender u pon discharge from ADOJC. In its minute entry ordering registration, the court expressed concern that Richard had failed to successfully complete two prior placements and, according to the ADOJC progress report, still had not developed a relapse preventio n plan. Richard timely appealed from the

order requiring sex offender registration

.

DISCUSSION

¶10 We review a court order requiring registration as a sex

offender for abuse of discretion. In re Sean M., 189 Ariz. 323, 324, 942 P.2d 482, 483 (App. 1997)

. A court abuses its discretion only where “the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” State v. Davis, 226 Ariz. 97, 102

- 03

, ¶ 23, 244
P.3d 101, 106

- 07 (App. 20 10) (internal quota tion omitted).

¶11 Richard acknowledges that pursuant to A.R.S. § 13

- 3821(D)

, the juvenile court had the discretion to require him to register as a sex offender until age twenty

- five. Richard contends, however, that (1) the

court abused its discretion by failing to balance the public safety purpose of registration against the potential effect that registration could have on his

future

, and (2) even if this court presumes the juvenile court e ngage d in such balancing, the record does not support s uch a pr esumption. Richard

cites Davis in support of these contentions. However, as this court explained in In re Javier B., 230 Ariz. 100, 104

, ¶ 19

, 280 P.3d 644, 648 (App. 2012)

, Davis d id not hold that a court must engage in any specific balancing

before orde ring a juvenile to register as a sex offender. Nor does the plain language of A.R.S. § 13

- 3821(D) require a court to consider any particular factors when determining whether to order a juvenile to register.

¶12 Although balancing is not required , the record here indicates

that the juvenile court weighed the public safety purpose against the potential effects of registration on Richard ’s life. T he court explicitly acknowledged “the hardship that registration may place” on Richard , but also expressed serious concern about his lack of effort to fully comply with treatment while in ADOJC.

¶13 Richard also argues that the juvenile court erred because he “became successfully rehabilitated as a sex offender. ” Specifically, Richard

takes i ssue with the cour t’s finding that he failed to successfully complete treatment at two prior placements because he did complete two years

treatment at YDI , his first placement facility

. However

, his probation officer stated that Richard was discharged fro m YDI because he was no longerIN RE: RICHARD M.

Decision of the Court

5 making progress. T he d ischarge r eport from YDI indicates that Richard had received maximum benefit from the program, but would require continued

treatment after discharge

, support during his transition into the community

, an d a revised relapse prevention plan. Richard also failed to successfully complete treatment at his second placement, Resolution Group, as he was discharged after one month for “failing to be an active participant in the treatment program

. ” In a September 2013 evaluation, a psychologist concluded that Richard’s prior treatments had been only partially successful. Thus, the court did not err in finding that Richard had unsuccessfully completed treatment.

¶14 Finally, Richard argues that his commitment to ADOJC was a

“ [ set up ] for failure” because it would have been impossible for him to successfully complete the program before he turned eighteen. However, Richard was committed to ADOJC because he had failed to adhere to the terms of his probation, inc luding his required treatment program at Resolution Group. Richard’s evaluating psychologist and probation officer both acknowledged the short window of opportunity for Richard to receive treatment, but each concluded that ADOJC was the best of the availa ble options. Rather than demonstrating full commitment to achieving

successful treatment during his limited time at ADOJC , Richard accrued thirty

- seven incident reports arising out of a variety of defiant behaviors throughout his placement

.

¶15 T he totality of the record supports the juvenile court’s

decision. While Richard has not committed any additional sexual offenses, his treatment providers repeatedly noted his unwillingness to participate fully in required treatment programs. Richard was discharged f rom his outpatient treatment at Resoluti on Group for failure to participate

. The April 2014 ADOJC progress report found that Richard continued to display attitudes supportive of sexual offending, interpersonal aggression, and impulsivity. That report recommended to the court that Richard be required to register because ADOJC psychologists found that he remained at a high risk to reoffend sexually

. B ased on these considerations, the juvenile court properly acted within its discretion in requiring sex o ffender registration.IN RE: RICHARD M.

Decision of the Court

6 CONCLUSION

¶16 W e affirm the juvenile court’s order requiring Richard to register as a sex offender until the age of twenty

- five.