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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

I N RE AUGUSTINE M.

N o. 1 CA- JV 19 -0329

A ppeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JV204299 The Honorable Eartha K. Washington , Jud ge , Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

The Law Offices of Kevin Breger , PLLC, Scottsdale By Kevin Breger Counsel for Appellant

Ma ricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Allister R. Adel C ounsel for Appellee FILED 1-30-2020IN RE AUGUSTINE M. Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

P E R K I N S , Judge:

¶1 Augustine M., a juvenile, timely filed this appeal 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 (App. 1989) , after pleading delinquent to one count of shoplifting, a class one misdemeanor

. ¶2 Augustine’s counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins , 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders , 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark , 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999); JV -117258 , 163 Ariz. 484, 485 -88 (App. 1989)

. Counsel asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the court’s finding of delinquency and resulting disposition

.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶3 OnJanuary 28, 2019, Augustine and hi s co
- juveniles shoplifted two cases of beer from the Love’s Truck Stop in Gila Bend. Clerks at the Love’s Truck Stop , and a co

- participant , identified Augustine to police as one of the participants

. Six months later , Augustine appeared in juvenile court at a pre

- adjudication conference and change

- of

- plea hearing and pled guilty to one count of shoplifting. The court questioned Augustine about his plea and found he knowing ly , voluntar ily , and intelligent ly accepted the plea

. Augustine avowed one prio r juvenile felony adjudication in the plea agreement. The court found Augustine delinquent and detained him

. After a detention review two weeks later, the court released Augustine to his parents pending disposition.
¶4 The court held a disposition hearing tw o months after Augustine pled guilty

. The court noted that Augustine’s psychological evaluation included a recommendation that he should be placed in a group home or residential treatment center. The court further noted Augustine’s prior criminal history, continued drug us e , the ineffectiveness of priorIN RE AUGUSTINE M. Decision of the Court

3 monitoring, and Augustine’s parents’ belief that sending him home would be ineffective towards rehabilitating him . T he court accordingly ordered Augustine to Juvenile Intensive Probation, with release to a Resident ial Treatment Center upon space availability.
¶5 Augustine timely filed this appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. sections 12-120.21(A)(1) and 8-235(A).

DISCUSSION
¶6 Substantial evidence, described above, supported the juvenile court’s adjudication. The proceedings below were conducted according to t he Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. Augustine was represented by an attorney and was present at all critical stages, including the pre

adjudication and disposition hearings

. ¶7 The record shows that Augustine knowingly, voluntarily, and inte lligently admitted the charge against him. The court imposed a disposition that was within its discretion . A.R.S. § 8 -341; see also In re Miguel R. , 204 Ariz. 328, 332, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

CONCLUSION
¶8 We have reviewed the entire record for arguable issues of law and find none

. See JV -117258 , 163 Ariz. at 488. Accordingly, we affirm the delinquency finding and disposition.

¶9 Upon filing of this decision, counsel need do no more than inform Augustine of the status of h is appeal and of h is future options unless, upon review, counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for revie w. See State v. Shattuck , 140 Ariz. 582, 584

– 85 (1984). Augustine has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona petition for review . Ariz. R. P. J uv. Ct. 107(A).