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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-JV 18-0286 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JV198969

The Honorable Pamela Hearn Svoboda, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

The Law Office of Kevin Breger, Scottsdale

By Kevin Breger

Counsel for Appellant

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Andrea L. Kever

Counsel for Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

which Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge David D. Weinzweig

joined.

FILED 1-15-2019
IN RE CHRISTIAN S. 

Decision of the Court

2

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Christian S. (Juvenile) appeals the juvenile court’s disposition 

order committing him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections 

(ADJC). For the following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In February 2018, Juvenile pleaded delinquent to one count of 

minor in possession of a firearm and was placed, for the third time, on

juvenile intensive probation (JIPS).1 In April, Juvenile admitted to violating 

the terms of his probation by testing positive twice for marijuana; thereafter 

failing to participate in weekly urinalysis testing, counseling, and services;

and failing to complete community service. Disposition for the violations

was delayed until June to accommodate scheduled medical treatment for a 

head injury sustained in an unrelated incident. Juvenile failed to appear for 

disposition as scheduled, and a search incident to his arrest on the resulting 

bench warrant revealed a hatchet and drug paraphernalia hidden under his

mattress. That same day, he tested positive for marijuana and 

amphetamines.

¶3 At the July 2018 disposition hearing, the juvenile probation 

officer (JPO) recommended Juvenile be committed to ADJC. The JPO noted

Juvenile had already been placed on JIPS three times and “exhausted all 

options available to probation.” Additionally, the JPO noted Juvenile had 

failed to comply with the terms of probation, Juvenile continued to use 

illegal drugs, and Juvenile’s parents were not willing to participate in 

services. Juvenile argued that commitment to ADJC was not the least 

restrictive alternative. He explained he required ongoing medical 

treatment for his head injury and raised concerns about his safety at ADJC.

¶4 After considering these circumstances and Juvenile’s high 

risk to reoffend, the juvenile court found Juvenile posed a threat to himself 

and the community and that all of the less restrictive alternatives had 

already been attempted. The court then ordered Juvenile be committed to 

ADJC “until the age of eighteen or until sooner released pursuant to law.”

Noting Juvenile’s concerns regarding his medical condition, the court 

ordered ADJC to conduct a medical examination upon entry and that a 

 

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

juvenile court’s order. In re Amber S., 225 Ariz. 364, 366-67, ¶ 6 (App. 2010) 

(citing In re John M., 201 Ariz. 424, 426, ¶ 7 (App. 2001)).
IN RE CHRISTIAN S. 

Decision of the Court

3

copy of a doctor’s medical report regarding Juvenile’s injuries be sent to 

ADJC. Juvenile timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 8-235(A),2 12-120.21(A)(1), 

and -2101(A)(1). See Rita J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 512, 513, ¶ 3 

(App. 2000) (“[T]he final order in a delinquency action is the disposition 

order.”) (citing Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. J-78151-S, 119 Ariz. 320, 321 

(App. 1978)).

DISCUSSION

¶5 “The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine an 

appropriate disposition for a delinquent juvenile.” In re Niky R., 203 Ariz. 

387, 390, ¶ 10 (App. 2002) (citing In re Kristen C., 193 Ariz. 562, 563, ¶ 7 (App.

1999)). Accordingly, we will not modify the court’s disposition absent an 

abuse of discretion. Id. A court abuses its discretion “when the 

[disposition] decision is arbitrary or capricious, or when the court fails to 

conduct an adequate investigation into the facts relevant to [disposition].” 

State v. Fillmore, 187 Ariz. 174, 184 (App. 1996) (citing State v. Stotts, 144 Ariz. 

72, 87 (1985)).

¶6 Generally, the juvenile court’s options at disposition “range 

from the less severe (probation on specified terms) to the most severe 

(commitment to ADJC up to age eighteen).” Amber S., 225 Ariz. at 367, ¶ 9; 

see also A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1). Before committing a juvenile to ADJC, 

however, the court must consider the guidelines promulgated in Arizona 

Code of Judicial Administration § 6-304(C)(1) (Commitment Guidelines). 

Specifically, when considering whether to commit a juvenile to ADJC, the 

court must:

a. Only commit those juveniles who are adjudicated for a 

delinquent act and whom the court believes require 

placement in a secure care facility for the protection of 

the community;

b. Consider commitment to ADJC as a final opportunity 

for rehabilitation of the juvenile, as well as a way of 

holding the juvenile accountable for a serious 

delinquent act or acts;

c. Give special consideration to the nature of the offense, 

the level of risk the juvenile poses to the community, 

 

2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite the current 

version of rules and statutes. 
IN RE CHRISTIAN S. 

Decision of the Court

4

and whether appropriate less restrictive alternatives to 

commitment exist within the community; and

d. Clearly identify, in the commitment order, the offense 

or offenses for which the juvenile is being committed 

and any other relevant factors that the court 

determines as reasons to consider the juvenile a risk to 

the community.

Ariz. Code Jud. Admin. § 6-304(C)(1). With the exception of subsection (a), 

the Commitment Guidelines are “just that: guidelines; they are not 

mandatory and do not place constraints on the juvenile court’s discretion 

. . . to determine whether a commitment to ADJC is in fact appropriate.” 

Niky R., 103 Ariz. at 390, ¶ 12 (quoting Pinal Cty. Juv. Delinquency Action No. 

JV-9404492, 186 Ariz. 236, 238 (App. 1996), and citing In re Melissa K., 197 

Ariz. 491, 495, ¶ 14 (App. 2000)). Nor should they be applied “in a 

mechanical fashion.” Id. at ¶ 13. Rather, the court must determine the 

appropriate disposition “under the unique circumstances of the particular 

juvenile.” Id.

¶7 Here, Juvenile argues the juvenile court failed to explore less 

restrictive alternatives before committing Juvenile to ADJC. Specifically, 

Juvenile argues the court should have continued him on JIPS and allowed 

him to recover from his surgeries at home. But even assuming it were 

otherwise appropriate to grant Juvenile further opportunities to comply 

with JIPS, the mere existence of a less restrictive and appropriate alternative 

does not establish an abuse of discretion so long as the court “give[s] special 

consideration to” any alternatives to commitment. Ariz. Code Jud. Admin.

§ 6-304(C)(1)(c); see also Niky R., 203 Ariz. at 390, ¶ 19 (noting the 

Commitment Guidelines “do not mandate that the less restrictive 

alternative be ordered”).

¶8 Here, Juvenile had an opportunity to provide the juvenile

court with all information he believed relevant to disposition, including his 

concerns regarding his medical history and needs. The record shows 

Juvenile had been placed on JIPS three times and repeatedly failed to 

engage in services. The court specifically noted Juvenile’s “pattern of 

noncompliance” and found that all less restrictive means had been tried 

without success. The record reflects the court gave special consideration to 

Juvenile’s medical condition before ordering commitment to ADJC and 

took steps to mitigate any risk to Juvenile’s safety while committed to 

ADJC. On this record, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s 

disposition order. Cf. JV-9404492, 186 Ariz. at 238-39 (affirming a 
IN RE CHRISTIAN S. 

Decision of the Court

5

disposition order committing a juvenile to ADJC where the juvenile was a 

repeat offender and the JPO testified juvenile’s “lack of commitment” made 

him an inappropriate candidate for less restrictive alternatives).

CONCLUSION

¶9 The juvenile court’s disposition order is affirmed.