NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

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

Counsel for Appellant
IN 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 indecent 

exposure, class 1 misdemeanors, and one count of assault, a class 3 

misdemeanor, arising from an unrelated incident. The plea agreement also 

incorporated Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-3821(D), which

gives the juvenile court discretion 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 standard and 

sex offender conditions of probation. 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” during his transition home. According to 

his probation officer, Richard was released from YDI because he was no 

longer making progress in his treatment. In addition to the standard and 

sex offender probation terms, Richard was required to continue treatment 

at 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’s
IN RE: RICHARD M.

Decision of the Court

3

probation officer 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 preparation for the October hearing, Richard underwent a 

psychosexual evaluation. The 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 (“ADOJC”), 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. The 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 required 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, the 
IN RE: RICHARD M.

Decision of the Court

4

juvenile court ordered that Richard register as a sex offender upon 

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 prevention 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. 2010) (internal quotation 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 engaged in 

such balancing, the record does not support such a presumption. 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 did not hold that a court must engage in any specific balancing 

before ordering 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. The 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 issue with the court’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 from YDI because he was no longer 
IN RE: RICHARD M.

Decision of the Court

5

making progress. The discharge report 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, and 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, including 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 available 

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 The 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 from his 

outpatient treatment at Resolution 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. Based on these considerations, the 

juvenile court properly acted within its discretion in requiring sex offender 

registration. 
IN RE: RICHARD M.

Decision of the Court

6

CONCLUSION

¶16 We affirm the juvenile court’s order requiring Richard to 

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