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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-JV 19-0329 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JV204299 

The Honorable Eartha K. Washington, Judge, Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

The Law Offices of Kevin Breger, PLLC, Scottsdale

By Kevin Breger

Counsel for Appellant

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Allister R. Adel

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 1-30-2020
IN 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 On January 28, 2019, Augustine and his 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 knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently 

accepted the plea. Augustine avowed one prior 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 two 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 use, the ineffectiveness of prior 
IN RE AUGUSTINE M. 

Decision of the Court

3 

monitoring, and Augustine’s parents’ belief that sending him home would 

be ineffective towards rehabilitating him. The court accordingly ordered

Augustine to Juvenile Intensive Probation, with release to a Residential

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 

the Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. Augustine was represented 

by an attorney and was present at all critical stages, including the preadjudication and disposition hearings. 

¶7 The record shows that Augustine knowingly, voluntarily, and 

intelligently 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 his appeal and of his future options

unless, upon review, counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission 

to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. 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. Juv. Ct. 107(A).