Opinion ID: 1258916
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: This is a juvenile case. The juvenile admitted his guilt and was placed on probation. He appealed. The court of appeals rejected all three points raised on appeal, but nevertheless reversed based on its sua sponte finding that the juvenile's waiver of counsel was not knowing or intelligent. In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-108721, 164 Ariz. 300, 302, 792 P.2d 763, 765 (App. 1990). We granted the state's petition for review and denied the juvenile's cross-petition. See Rule 28, Ariz.R.Pro.Juv.Ct., 17B A.R.S. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3), and A.R.S. § 12-120.24. ISSUE PRESENTED Whether the juvenile's waiver of counsel was made knowingly and intelligently. PROCEEDINGS BELOW On January 11, 1989, the state filed a petition against the juvenile alleging delinquent conduct, consisting of one count of burglary and one count of theft. An advisory hearing was held on February 24, 1989. Both the juvenile and his mother were present. At the advisory hearing, the juvenile court commissioner informed the juvenile and his mother of the juvenile's right to counsel, explained the nature of a trial, the role of an attorney, and possible dispositions of the case. The juvenile and his mother were both given an opportunity to ask questions. The juvenile waived counsel with his mother's consent and admitted he was guilty of burglary and theft. Based on the admissions, the court found that the juvenile was a delinquent child. After the probation officer recommended intensive probation, the court appointed counsel to represent the juvenile. Counsel moved for withdrawal of the admissions of guilt. Following a hearing on the motion at which the juvenile testified, Judge Silverman concluded: Commissioner Meyers [who accepted the waiver and admissions] found that the youngster understood these rights and that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily gave them up. Having heard the recording [of the advisory hearing] I am unable to say that Commissioner Meyers' determination was clearly erroneous, which [determination] appears to have been supported by the record. Therefore, motion to withdraw admission is denied. The juvenile was placed on probation, ordered to spend a weekend in detention, and to pay $50 in restitution. The juvenile appealed, raising three issues: improper waiver of his right of confrontation; improper waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination; and involuntary waiver of counsel. The court of appeals rejected all three contentions. However, the court of appeals went on, sua sponte, to conclude that the juvenile's waiver of counsel, although voluntary, was not knowing or intelligent because the juvenile and his mother were not adequately warned of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. The court of appeals' discussion and disposition of the subject was as follows: This court has recently held in [ Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-116553, ] 162 Ariz. 209, 782 P.2d 327 (1989), that a juvenile and his parent[s] must be informed of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation in order for a waiver of counsel to be knowing and intelligent. The record must establish that the juvenile knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open. Id. quoting Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541, 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 582 (1975). We have reviewed the record sua sponte to determine if the juvenile's waiver was knowing and intelligent. The juvenile was told that he would be unable to properly conduct a trial without the aid of an attorney. This statement alone does not adequately inform a juvenile of the danger inherent in self-representation nor does it convey to a juvenile that a lawyer could provide greater assistance than the juvenile alone could provide. A juvenile cannot knowingly or intelligently waive his right to counsel without being told in more specific language about the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, e.g., to name but a few, ignorance of court procedures and rules, lack of skill in obtaining and examining witnesses, and inability to creatively devise a suitable resolution of the case. 164 Ariz. at 302, 792 P.2d at 765 (emphasis added). Based on this analysis, the court of appeals reversed and remanded. Our review is limited to the issue of whether the waiver of counsel was knowingly and intelligently made, as found by the juvenile judge.