I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO

I N R E M AR T I N M
. a n d RE NE N. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- J V 2009- 0080

2 C A
- J V 2009- 0081 ( C ons ol i dat ed) DEPA RTM ENT A O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY

C aus e N os . 15201202 and 18591801 H o n o rab le S u za n n a S
. C u n eo , Ju d g e P ro T em p o re

AFFI RM ED
B arbar a LaW al l , Pi m a C ount yA t t orney B yJa m e s M . C o u g h lin
R obertJ
. H i r s h, Pi m a C ount yPubl i c D efe nder B yJ ul i e M
. L evi t t - G ur en T ucs on A tto rn e y s f

o r S tate
T ucs on A tt o rne y s fo r M ino rs
H O W A R D , C hi ef J udge. ¶1 I n thes e cons ol i dat ed appea l s by the St at e of A r i zona, w e ar e as ked t o deci de
w hether A
. R
. S. § 28- 3320 r equi r es the j uveni l e courtt o not i fythe M ot orV ehi cl e D i vi s i on D EC 21 2009 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWOW e re f e r to b o th th e A riz o n a D e p a rtm e n t o f T ra n sp o rta tio n a n d th e M o to r V e h icle 1 D i vi s i on as “M V D ” i n t hi s deci s i on. 2 of the A r i zona D epart m entof Tra ns por t at i on (M V D ) w hen a mi norhas been a dj udi cat ed 1 d e lin q u e n t b a se d o n th e o f f e n se o f p o ss e ss io n o f

m a riju a n a , a c las s o n e m isd e m e a n o r, in
v io latio n o f

A .R .S . § 1 3 -3 4 0 5 ( A ) ( 1 ) , o r w h e th e r th e c o u rt m a y , in th e e x e rc ise o f its di s cr et i on, choos e nott o not i fyM V D of the adj udi cat i on. W e hol d the j uveni l e courti s not
re q u ire d to n o tifyM V D u n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s. A d d iti o n a lly , w e c o n c lu d e th e ju v e n ile
c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in th e se tw o d e lin q u e n c yp ro c e e d in g s in c h o o sin g n o t to
n o ti fyM V D thatthe courthad adj udi cat ed the mi nor s del i nquentaft erfi ndi ng theyhad
c o m m itte d th e o f

f e n s e s o f p o s s e s s io n o f

m a ri ju a n a . Backg r ound ¶2 M art i n M
. , now fi ft een y ear s ol d, w as adj udi cat ed del i nquentaft erhe admi t t ed pos s es s i ng m ar i

j uana i n A pr i l 2009. R ene N
. , also fiftee n y ear s ol d, w as adj udi cat ed d e linqu ent aft er he adm i t t ed p ossess i ng m ari j uan a on tw o o ccasi on s i n M ay20 09
. Itis
un dis pu t ed thatno m otor veh i cl es w ere i nv olved du ri ng the co m m i ssi on of these offen ses. ¶3 A tM art i n’ s di s pos i t i on hear i ng, the s t at e as ked the court t o s end a c opyof the di s pos i t i on m i nut e ent ry t o M V D , ar gui ng that § 28- 3320 r equi r es the j uveni l e cour tt o not i fy M V D i f a j uveni l e has been a dj udi cat ed bas ed on the comm i s s i on of anyoffe ns e s peci fi ed i n the s t atut e, w hi ch i ncl udes pos s es s i on of m ar i j uana. M art i n oppos ed the r eques tand as ked the courtt o t ake i nt o acc ountthatt he off ens e had not inv ol ved the us e of am ot orvehi cl e.3

H e not ed furtherthathe w as noty etol d enough t o dr i ve. T h e courtdecl i ned t o s end the adj udi cat i on r ecor d t o M V D , not i ng thatM art i n’ s pr i orr efe rr al s t o the j uveni l e courthad not b ee n d rug -relat ed an d that the c u rren t of fe n se w as n o t a d ri v ing o ff en se. S im il arly , at R en e’s d ispo sit ion h ea ri n g o n e d aylat er, th e state a sk ed the s am e jud g e to n o ti fyM V D o f R en e’s adj udi cat i on. R ene obj ect ed on the gr ound that the offe ns e w as notdr i vi ng- r el at ed, and the
cou rtden i ed the st at e’s request . T he juven i l e cou rtplaced b o th m in o rs o n si x m on ths’ pr obat i on. Juveni l e C ourt ’ s O bl i gat i on t o R eport ¶4 T he s t at e cont ends the j uveni l e courterr ed i n both cas es beca us e i tw as req u ir ed to tr an sm itto M V D the m ino rs’ ad jud icati o n rec o rds. R ely ing o n § 2 8 -33 2 0 (A )(6), the st at e ar gues that the l egi s l atur e i nt ended t hat the dri verl i cens es of m i nor s w ho have be en
a d j u d i c a t e d d e l i n q u e n tb a s e d o n p o s s e s s i o n o f m a r i j u a n a b e s u s p e n d e d o rr e f u s e d
. We
re v ie w a ju v e n ile c o u rt ’s d is p o s itio n o rd e r f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . I

n r e T h e m i ka M. , 206 A r i z. 553, ¶ 5, 81 P. 3d 344, 345 ( A pp. 2003)
. “A n abus e of di s cr et i on i ncl udes an err orof l aw . ” Stat e v. G onz al ez , 2 1 6 A ri z . 1 1 , ¶ 2 , 1 6 2 P .3 d 6 5 0 , 6 5 1 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ), quot i ng Stat e v. R ubi ano , 2 1 4 Ar i z . 1 8 4 , ¶ 5 , 1 5 0 P. 3 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 2 ( App
. 2 0 0 7 )
. And , we r e v i e w de n o vo q u e s t i o n s o f

la w , s u c h a s th e m e a n in g a n d in te rp re ta tio n o f s ta tu te s . I

n r e A a r o n M. , 204 A ri z. 15 2 , ¶ 2 , 6 1 P
. 3 d 3 4 , 3 5 (A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). ¶5 Sect i on 28- 3320 pert ai ns gener al l yt o the s us pens i on of the dri verl i cens e of p e r s o n s u n d e rth e a g e o f e i g h t e e n . T h e s t a tu t e s p e c i f i e s th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s th a tr e q u i r e M VD4

t o s us pend or r efus e t o i s s ue a dr i verl i cens e. Sect i on 28- 3320( A ) ( 6) pr ovi des , “on r ece i vi ng the r ecor d of .
. . convi ct i on fora vi ol at i on of anypr ovi s i on of t i t le 1 3, chapt er34 [drug off enses] , ” M V D m usti m m ediat el ysuspend or r efuse to i ssue a j uv enil e’s dri ver l i cense
u n til th e ju v e n ile re a c h e s th e a g e o f e ig h tee n . S e c tio n 2 8 -3 3 2 0 (E ) in c lu d e s ju v e n ile
a d ju d ic a tio n s a s “ c o n v ic tio n s ” f o r p u rp o s e s o f

th a t s ta tu te . ¶6 O urpr i m ary purpos e i n i nt erpr et i ng a s t atut e i s t o det erm i ne and e ffe ctuat e the l egi s l atur e’ s i nt ent , m i ndful thatthe bes tr efl ect i on of that i nt ent i s the pl ai n l anguage of the
s ta tu te . See Bobby G
. v. A r iz . D ep’ tof E con. Sec. , 219 A r i z. 506, ¶ 9, 200 P. 3d 1003, 1006 (A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); see al

so W ashb urn v. Pim a C o u n ty , 206 A r i z. 571, ¶ 9, 81 P. 3d 1030, 1034 ( A pp. 2003) (centr al goal i n i nt erpr et i ng s t atut es “i s t o as cert ai n and gi ve ef fec tt o t he leg isla tu re ’s in ten t”) . T h e leg isla tu r e ’ s in te n t w ith re sp e c t to § 2 8 -3 3 2 0 (A )(6 ) is to d isc o u ra g e ju v e n iles f

ro m u sin g ill e g a l su b sta n c e s b ye x p o sin g th e m to th e lo ss o f th e ir d ri v in g p ri v ile g e s , e v e n w h e n th e o f f e n s e m a y b e c o m p le te ly u n re la te d to d ri v in g . C f
. In re B r a n d o n H. , 195 A r i z. 387, ¶¶ 10, 12, 988 P. 2d 619, 621 ( A pp. 1999) ( l egi s l at i ve i nt entof § 28- 3320( A ) ( 3) t o di s cour age j uveni l es fr om comm i t t i ng cr i m es thr ough pot ent i al l os s of d riv in g p riv ileg e s, e v e n w h e n o f f e n se n o t d riv in g -re late d ); I n r e M ar i copa C o u n t

y Juv
. A ct i on N o. JV-114428 , 160 A r i z. 90, 93, 770 P. 2d 394, 397 ( A pp. 1989) (co u rt h eld, for di ffe r ents t atut e, l egi s l atur e coul d have i nt ended t o det er j uveni l e drug abus e thr ough l os s of d ri v in g p ri v ile g e s e v e n w h e n o f f e n s e n o t d ri v in g -r e la te d ).5

¶7 B ut§ 28- 3320 m andat es onl yw hatM V D m us tdo w h en iti s i nform ed of a n ad jud icati o n . N o thing in § 2 8 -33 2 0 req u ir es th e juv en il e c o u rtto tr an sm itto M V D the re co rd p e rta in in g to th e d e lin q u e n c y a d ju d ica tio n o f a m in o r th a t w a s b a se d o n th e o f f e n se s M a rtin and R ene a dm i t t ed her e. N or ar e w e aw ar e of anyothers t atut e thati m pos es thi s obl i gat i on on the j uveni l e court . “I t i s a uni ver s al rul e that court s w i l l not enl ar ge, s tr et ch, expand, or ext end a s tat u te t o m att er s notfal l i ng w i thi n i t s expr es s pr ovi s i ons . ” A ntoni o P
. v. A ri z. D ep’ tof E con. Sec. , 2 1 8 A ri z . 4 0 2 , ¶ 1 3 , 1 8 7 P .3 d 1 1 1 5 , 1 1 1 8 (A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), quot i ng Stat e ex
r el
. Mor r is on v. A nw ay , 8 7 A ri z. 20 6 , 2 0 9 , 3 4 9 P
. 2 d 7 7 4 , 7 7 6 (19 6 0 ). ¶8 Ha d th e l e g i s l a tu r e i n t e n d e d t o r e q u i r e th e j u v e n i l e c o u r tt o tr a n s mi tt o M VD th e re c o rd in a ll d e lin q u e n c ya d ju d ic a tio n s , it r e a d ily c o u ld h a v e d o n e s o . C f
. Schuck & Sons C o n str. v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 2 1 3 A ri z. 74 , ¶ 2 6 , 1 3 8 P
. 3 d 1 2 0 1 , 1 2 0 7 (A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); see al so C ham pl i n v. Sar

geant , 192 A r i z. 371, ¶ 16, 965 P. 2d 763, 766 ( 1998) ( appl y i ng doctr i ne of

“ expr es s i o uni us es texc l us i o al t er i us , ” meani ng expr es s i on of one i t em i m pl i es excl us i on of other s )
. I ndeed, the l egi s l atur e has s o pr ovi ded i n otherci r cumst ance s . Sect i on 28- 330 5, A
. R
. S. , w hi ch i s ent i t l ed, “C our tact i on on convi c t i o n , ” s p e c i f i e s th e court ’ s obl i gat i ons w hen a per s on has been c onvi ct ed of a n offe ns e that req u ir es the m andat oryr evoca t i on of that per s on’ s dr i v er li ce n se. T he s t atut e pr ovi des , i n r el evantpart , “the courtthator der ed the
c o n v i c t i o n o rj u d g me n ts h a l l
. . . [ f ] o rwa r d a r e c o r d o f

th e c o n v i c t i o n o rj u d g me n t t o ” M VD. § 28- 3305( A ) ( 3)
. T he l egi s l atur e di d noti ncl ude a s i m i l arr equi r ementi n § 28- 3320. Sect i on 28- 3304, A
. R
. S. , a compani on t o § 28- 3305, i ns truct s th e M V D t o r evoke the l i cens e of6

cert ai n d ri vers “on r ecei pt” of a forw arded r ecord of con vict i on for the enum erat ed o ffen ses. It u s e s m u c h o f th e la n g u a g e in § 2 8 -3 3 2 0 to p ro v id e th is d ir e c tio n to M V D
. See § 28- 3304. I ti s not ew or thy , ther efor e, thatther e i s no compani on s t atut e t o § 2 8 -33 2 0 i ns truct i ng t he
c o u rts to a c t. A t o ra l ar g u m e n t, th e sta te in sis ted th a t th e d isc re tio n a rylan g u a g e in §§ 28- 3320( A ) ( 7) and ( B )

— the M V D m us tact “i f orde r ed by the court ”— demonstr at es t he l egi s l atur e’ s i nt entt o m andat e ac t i on i n the others ect i ons of the sta tut e. H ow ever , the leg isla tu re ’s c lea rlyd is ti n c t in s tr u c tio n s to th e M V D in § 2 8 -3 3 0 4 a n d to th e c o u rts in § 28- 3305 underm i ne the s t at e’ s att empt t o dr aw thi s di s t i nct i on. ¶9 Fur therm or e, as w e m ade cl eari n G onz al ez , w e ca nnotr ew r i t e a s t atut e under the gui s e of di vi ni ng l egi s l at i ve i nt ent . 216 A r i z. 11, ¶ 10, 162 P. 3d at653.

B u t i t i s n o t w ith in eith er the tr ial co u rt ’s or this co u rt ’s author i tyt o amend a s t atut e t o corr ectw hat appea r s t o have be en le g i s l a t iv e o v e rs ig h t. See Stat e v. H unt er , 137 A r i z. 234, 2 3 9 -4 0 , 6 6 9 P .2 d 1 0 1 1 , 1 0 1 6 -1 7 (A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) (re f u sin g to co rrect l eg isl ati v e o v ersigh t i n sen tenci n g en h an ce m en t st atute). R a th e r, itis th e leg isla tu re ’s p lac e to c o rre c t an ysu c h o v e rsig h t. See i d. a t 2 4 0 , 6 6 9 P .2 d a t 1 0 1 7 ; se e a lso S ta te v . P a tch in , 125 A ri z. 50 1 , 5 0 2 , 6 1 0 P
. 2 d 1 0 6 2 , 1 0 6 3 (A p p . 1 9 8 0 ) (“[T ]his co u rt i s notatl i bertyt o r ew r i t e the s t atut e under the gui s e of j udi ci al in te rp re ta tio n .” ). Id . (cita tio n o m itt e d ). W e th in k th is p rin c ip le a p p lies w ith e q u a l f o rc e in th e ju v e n ile d isp o sitio n c o n tex t. W h e th e r th e a b se n c e o f th e sa m e re q u ire m e n t in § 2 8 -3 3 2 0 th a t ex ists i n § 28- 3305 w as i nt ent i onal oran over s i ght , w e w i l l notw r i t e i ti nt o the s t atut e. ¶10 F in a lly , the leg isla tu re h a s g iv e n th e ju v e n ile co u rt c o n sid e ra b le d isc re tio n in
c h o o s i n g t h e a p p ro p ri a te d is p o s itio n f o r e a c h ju v e n ile a d

ju d ic a te d d e lin q u e n t. See A
. R. S.T he s t atut e w as amended i n 2009 and has been r enumber ed a s § 4- 244( 34)
. 2009 2 A r i z. Ses s . L aw s , ch. 175, § 3. 7 § 8
- 3 4 1
. I f

th e l e g i s l a tu r e h a d i n t e n d e d t o l i mi t o re l i mi n a t e th e c o u r t ’ s d i s c r e t i o n , we p re s u m e it w o u ld h a v e d o n e s o e x p re s s ly. C f. Sc h u c k

& S o n s C o n s tr . , 213 A r i z. 74, ¶ 26, 1 3 8 P .3 d a t 1 2 0 7 . A n d it is s till f re e to d o s o . See i d. ¶11 T he st at e re l i es on I n r e Hi l la r

y C. , 2 2 1 A ri z. 78 , 2 1 0 P
. 3 d 1 2 4 9 (A p p . 2 0 0 9 ), t o s uppor ti t s ar gum ent that the j uveni l e courtw as r equi r ed t o forw ar d t o M V D the r ecor ds
o f th e d e lin q u e n c ya d

ju d ica tio n s in th e se c a se s. B u t Hi l la r y C. actual l yi l l us tr at es thatw hen the l egi s l atur e w ant s t o i m pos e s uch an obl i gat i on on the court s , i tdoes s o cl ear l yand
u n a m b ig u o u s ly. Id
. ¶12 A s w e not ed i n Hi l la r y C. , § 2 8 -3 3 0 5 an d § 2 8 -15 5 9 , A
. R
. S
. , rea d tog ethe r,
r equi r e the j uveni l e courtt o not i fyM V D w hen a j uveni l e has been a dj udi cat ed del i nquent f o r v i o l a t i n g f

o r m e r A
. R
. S
. § 4
- 2 4 4 ( 3 3 ) , w h i c h p r o h i b i t s a p e r s o n u n d e rth e a g e o f tw e n ty- 2 one fr om “dr i v[i ng] orbe[i ng] i n phy s i cal contr ol of a mot orvehi cl e” w i th al cohol i n hi s or h e r s y s te m . I

d. ¶¶ 11- 14. A s w e s t at ed, “[l ] i ke § 28- 3305, § 28- 1559 i m pos es an obl i gat i on t o r eportconvi ct i ons for cert ai n offe ns es found i n t i t l e 28 and ‘ anyotherl aw r egul at i ng t he oper at i on of vehi cl es on hi ghw ay s . ’ ” Id . ¶ 1 3 , quot i ng§ 2 8 -15 5 9 (B ), (H ). ¶13 W e al s o not ed i n Hi l la r y C. that , “§ 28- 1559 s peci fi cal l ydefi nes the r eport i ng
o b li g ati o n s o f ju v en il e co u rt o ff icers, p rov iding that “‘[ e]a ch jud g e, re fe ree , h ea ri n g o ff icer, p ro b a tio n o f

f ice r o r o th e r p e rso n re sp o n sib le f o r th e d isp o sitio n o f

c a se s in v o lv in g tra f

f ic8

o f f e n s e s . . . com m i t t ed by persons unde rei ght een y ears of

age sh a ll’ re p o rt v io latio n s to A D O T
. ” Id ., quot i ng§ 2 8 -15 5 9 (H )(2). W e no ted fu rth er th at, “[ p ]ursu an t t o § 2 8 -15 5 9 (J),

‘ [f] ai l ur e, r efus al ornegl ectof a j udi ci al offi cert o compl yw i th [§ 28- 1559] i s m i s conduct i n o f f i c e a n d g r o u n d s f

o r r e mov a l f

r o m o f f i c e . ’ ” Id ., quot i ng§ 28- 1559( J )
. N o s i m i l ar
s ta tu te s a re im p lic a te d h e re . ¶14 A t o r al ar gum ent , the s t at e r el i ed hea vi l yon B r a n d o n H. t o a r g u e th att he l egi s l atur e i nt ended t o req u i r e the courtt o forw ar d the r ecor d of convi ct i on r egar dl es s of whe th e r a d r i v i n g o f

f e n s e i s i n v o l v e d
. I n Br a n d o n H. , w e u p h eld th e juv en il e c o u rt ’s deci s i on t o not i fyM V D thatB r andon had a dm i t t ed t o cr i m i nal damage; he had agr eed t o the
s u s p e n s i o n o f

h i s d r i v i n g p r i v i l e g e s . 1 9 5 A r i z . 1 , 4 , 9 8 8 P
. 2 d a t6 1 9
- 2 0
. H o w e v e r , we pr im ari l yaddr es s ed the cons t i tut i onal i tyof the s us pens i on of j uveni l es ’ l i cens es , an i s s ue
w h o lly u n re la te d to th e o n e b e f o re u s in th is m a tte r. I

d. ¶¶ 6- 13. W e conc lud e, t h ere fore , that itis fo r th e juv en il e c o u rtto d ec ide, in the e x erc ise o f it s d iscreti o n , w h ethe r t o fo rw ard t o M V D the r ecor d of a j uveni l e adj udi cat ed del i nquentforpos s es s i ng m ar i j uana. A buse of

D i s cre t i on ¶15 H avi ng det erm i ned that the j uveni l e cour t had t he di s cr et i on t o deci de w hether to f o rw a rd to M V D th e a d

ju d ica tio n re c o rd s p e rta in in g to M a rtin a n d R e n e , w e n o w tu rn to the q u esti o n w h ethe r i n d ec iding n o t to, the co u rt ab u sed that d iscreti o n . “A juv en il e c o u rt h a s b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r mi n i n g th e p r o p e rd i s p o s i t i o n o f a d e l i n q u e n tj u v e n i l e , a n d we
w i l l notdi s turb a di s pos i t i on or der abs ent an abus e of the court ’ s di s cr et i on. ” T h e m i ka M. ,9

206 A r i z. 553, ¶ 5, 81 P. 3d at345 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. I n the anal ogous cont extof r evi ew i ng the s ent ence i m pos ed on a pe r s on convi ct ed of a n offe ns e as an adul t , w e w i l l notdi s turb a l egal s ent ence unl es s i ti s arbi tr ary , capr i ci ous , or bas ed on an i nadequa t e i nves t i gat i on of the
re le v a n t f

a c ts . S ta te v . S to tts , 1 4 4 A riz . 7 2 , 8 7 , 6 9 5 P .2 d 1 1 1 0 , 1 1 2 5 (1 9 8 5 ); see al so In re Mig u e lR. , 204 A r i z. 328, ¶ 31, 63 P. 3d 1065, 1073 ( A pp. 2003) ( j uveni l e di s pos i t i on hear i ng
an alog o u s to a d u ltsen tenc ing ). In d ec id in g w h e th er to rep o rtM arti n ’s an d R en e’s ad jud icat i ons t o M V D , the j uveni l e courtcons i der ed evi dence thatthe off ens es di d not i nvol ve m ot or vehi cl es . W i th r es pectt o M art i n, the j uveni l e courtexpr es s l ycons i der ed that hi s pr i orr efe r r al s di d not i nvol ve drug- r el at ed offens es . U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , w e ca n in f e r th a t th e c o u rt’s d isp o sitio n s, in c lu d in g its d e c isio n n o t to n o tifyM V D , w e re re late d to th e re h a b ilita tiv e p u rp o s e o f ju v e n ile d is p o s itio n s . S e e Mig u e lR. , 2 0 4 Ar i z . 3 2 8 , ¶ 3 6 , 63 P .3 d a t 1 0 7 5 ; see al

so A r i z. R
. P. J uv. C t . 31( A ) ( courts hal l i m pos e on j uveni l e “c ondi t i ons
o f p rob ati o n that w il l pro m o te reh ab il it ati o n an d p u b li c sa fe ty ”). B ase d o n the re co rds b ef o re
us , w e ca nnots aythe j uveni l e court abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deci di ng nott o not i fyM V D of M a rt in ’s a n d R e n e ’s a d ju d ic a tio n s . C oncl usi on ¶16 T he j uveni l e cour t w as notr equi r ed t o not i fyM V D thatM art i n and R ene ha d been adj ud i c a t e d d e l i n q u e n tb a s e d o n h a v i n g c o mmi t t e d th e o f f e n s e o f p o s s e s s i o n ofT he s t at e als o as ks us t o deci de w hetherthe j uveni l e courti s r equi r ed t o forw ar d a 3 copyof del i nquencyadj udi cat i ons bas ed on the j uveni l e’ s comm i s s i on of anyof the off ens es i n § 28- 3320. W e need not and do not deci de that i s s ue beca us e i ti s notr el evantt o the i s s ues b e f o re u s in th e s e tw o a p p e a ls
. See Progr es s i ve Spe ci al t y I n s. C o . v. Far m ers I

ns . C o. of A ri z. , 143 A r i z. 547, 548, 694 P. 2d 835, 836 ( A pp. 1985) ( appel l at e courts houl d notdeci de is s u e s o th e r t h a n th o s e re q u ir e d to d is p o s e o f a p p e a l u n d e r c o n s id e ra tio n ). 10 m a riju a n a . A n d b a se d o n th e re c o rd s b e f o re u s, th e ju v e n ile c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its 3 d i s c r e t i o n b y c h o o s i n g n o t t o f o r war d t o M VD th e j u v e n i l e s ’ r e c o r d s o r o th e rwi s e not i fy M V D of the adjudi cat i on s. T herefore, w e affirm the d i sposi t i on orders
.

____________________________________ J O SE PH W
. H O W A R D , C hi ef J udge
CO NC UR RI NG:

____________________________________ PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , Pr es i di ng J udge

____________________________________ G A R Y E L
. V Á SQ U E Z , J udge