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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-JV 22-0023

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JV604758

The Honorable Sigmund G. Popko, 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 Krista Wood

Counsel for Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which 

Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

FILED 10-20-2022
IN RE CARSON Y.

Decision of the Court

2

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Carson Y. appeals from a court order requiring him to register 

as a sex offender until he is 25 resulting from his convictions for indecent 

exposure to a minor under 15, assault with sexual motivation, and a 

probation violation. Carson’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, 

after a diligent search of the record, counsel found no arguable question of 

law that was not frivolous. Carson was allowed to file a supplemental brief 

but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for arguable 

issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, 

¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm the court’s order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Carson pled delinquent to indecent exposure to a minor 

under the age of 15 and assault with sexual motivation.

¶3 After a disposition hearing on his plea, the court placed 

Carson on probation. It required him to participate in, cooperate with, and 

complete all therapy, counseling, treatment, or placement as arranged by 

his parents, school, placement, or probation officer. The probation term was 

to end on January 26, 2022. The court also ordered Carson into residential 

care at the Youth Development Institute when a bed became available. The 

court deferred the matter of sexual registration. Later, on the State’s motion, 

the court scheduled a registration hearing for January 14, 2022.

¶4 The State filed a petition alleging four probation violation

allegations: (1) failing to follow the rules of the guardian (placement at 

Youth Development Institute); (2) failing to complete the treatment; 

(3) engaging in sexual activity with a peer at Youth Development Institute; 

and (4) viewing pornography while at Youth Development Institute. The 

next day, Carson entered a plea agreement admitting he failed to complete 

treatment, and the court scheduled the disposition hearing for January 24, 

2022.

¶5 At the hearing, Carson’s probation officer recommended that 

he be unsuccessfully terminated from probation and must register as a sex

offender. The State supported the recommendation. The recommendations 

relied on psychosexual risk assessments that suggested Carson was likely 
IN RE CARSON Y.

Decision of the Court

3

to re-offend sexually and showed his sexual risk score had increased while 

in treatment.

¶6 Carson’s attorney argued that if Carson had to register, it 

would impact his ability to receive treatment, which all parties agreed

should continue. Still, the court terminated Carson as unsuccessfully 

completing probation and ordered him to register as a sex offender until he 

was 25.

¶7 The court filed its order before Carson turned 18 on January 

26, 2022. Carson appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶8 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have 

reviewed the record for any arguable issues. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We 

find none.

¶9 Carson was represented by counsel and was present at, or 

waived his right to be present at, all stages of the proceedings against him. 

The record reflects that the superior court afforded Carson all his

constitutional and statutory rights and conducted the proceedings 

following the Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. The court held 

appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial and 

summarized above was sufficient to support the court’s decision.

CONCLUSION

¶10 The court’s order against Carson is affirmed in full. After the 

filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Carson’s 

representation in this appeal will end after informing Carson of the 

outcome of this appeal and his future options unless counsel’s review 

reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court 

by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).