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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-JV 14-0322

Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County

No. S0900JV201400157, S0900JV201400225

The Honorable Michala M. Ruechel, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Emery K. La Barge, Attorney at Law, Snowflake

By Emery K. La Barge

Counsel for Appellant

Navajo County Attorney’s Office, Holbrook

By Galen Wilkes

Counsel for Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Donn Kessler joined.
IN RE REID B.

Decision of the Court

2

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 

Ariz. 484, 486-87, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237-38 (App. 1989). Counsel for Reid B. 

(the juvenile) filed a brief advising that, after searching the entire record, he 

has not found any arguable issues to present on appeal, and asks this Court 

to review the record for fundamental error. Finding none, we affirm the 

juvenile’s adjudications and dispositions.

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In March 2014, the juvenile and a friend entered and 

vandalized an unoccupied, bank-owned home. With respect to this 

incident, a delinquency petition was filed against the juvenile charging him 

with criminal damage in an amount exceeding $10,000, and burglary in the 

second degree. In April 2014, the juvenile and two friends spray painted 

several walls, doors, and windows at a local junior high school. A

delinquency petition was also filed against the juvenile for his role in this 

incident that charged him with aggravated criminal damage and criminal 

damage in an amount exceeding $2,000 but less than $10,000.

¶3 The juvenile court held two contested adjudication hearings 

on the same day in September 2014. As to the incident involving the home, 

the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent on burglary in the second degree 

and a lesser included offense of criminal damage. As to the incident

involving the school, the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent on the 

aggravated criminal damage charge, but found not responsible for criminal 

damage. The court placed the juvenile on standard probation for a period 

of twelve months, and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of 

$12,203.37 for damage done to the home, and $288.43 for damage done to 

the school.2 

¶4 We have searched the entire record for reversible error and 

find none. See State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300, 451 P.2d 878, 881 (1969); JV-

 

1 We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light 

most favorable to upholding the juvenile court’s order adjudicating a minor 

delinquent. See In re Natalie Z., 214 Ariz. 452, 454, ¶ 2, 153 P.3d 1081, 1083 

(App. 2007).

2 The juvenile and the other participants are jointly and severally 

liable for these restitution amounts. 
IN RE REID B.

Decision of the Court

3

117258, 163 Ariz. at 488, 788 P.2d at 1239. So far as the record reveals, the 

juvenile was present at all critical stages of the proceedings, including the 

contested adjudication, disposition, and restitution hearings, and was

represented by counsel. The juvenile was also provided an opportunity to 

speak at his disposition hearing. The juvenile court proceedings were 

conducted in full compliance with the juvenile’s constitutional and 

statutory rights, and the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. 

Sufficient evidence supported the adjudications, and the dispositions were

within the juvenile court’s authority under Arizona Revised Statutes 

sections 8-341 (2015) and -344 (2015). 

CONCLUSION

¶5 We affirm the juvenile’s adjudications and dispositions.

¶6 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 

154, 156-57 (1984), counsel’s obligations in this appeal are at an end. 

Counsel need do no more than inform the juvenile of the status of the 

appeal and the juvenile’s future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an 

issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition 

for review. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(A), (J).