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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

D IVISION O NE

In re CARSON Y.

N o . 1 CA

- JV 2 2

- 0023

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JV604758 The Honorable Sigmund G. Popko
, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSE L
The Law Offices of Kevin Breger
, PLLC, Scottsdale By Kevin Breger Counsel for Appell ant

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
, Phoenix By Krista Wood C ounsel for Appell ee

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 10-20-2022IN 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 hi m to regist e r 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 i ssues. 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 a ge 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 t he matter of sexual registration. Later, on the State’s motion, the court scheduled a registration hearing for January 1 4, 2022.

¶4 The State filed a petition alleging four probation violation allegations : (1) failing to follow the rules of the guardian ( plac ement 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 likelyIN 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 i f Carson had to register , it would impact his ability to receive treatment
, which all parties agreed should continue. Still, t he court terminated Carson as unsuccessfully completing probation and ordered him to register as a sex offen der 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 no ne.
¶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, def ense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Carson ’ s representation in this appeal will end after inform ing 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).