Court Opinion

ID: 9912136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 18:02:58.995042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:24.445359
License: Public Domain

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 DELINQUENCY OF J.C.

                             No. 1 CA-JV 23-0144
                               FILED 12-21-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                             No. JV207894
            The Honorable Genene Dyer, Judge Pro Tempore

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney at Law, Phoenix
By Robert D. Rosanelli
Counsel for Appellant

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Christine A. Davis
Counsel for Appellee

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.
                       IN RE DELINQUENCY OF J.C.
                           Decision of the Court

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1             J.C. appeals the juvenile court’s order requiring him to
register as a sex offender until age 25. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

              FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2            In June 2022, after J.C. pleaded delinquent to two counts of
child molestation, the juvenile court committed him to the Arizona
Department of Juvenile Corrections (“ADJC”). The court deferred a
decision on whether to require sex-offender registration. In July 2023, after
considering evidence and oral argument regarding registration, the court
ordered J.C. to register as a sex offender. J.C. timely appealed, and we have
jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 8-235.

                                DISCUSSION

¶3             The juvenile court may require a juvenile who has been found
delinquent of certain offenses, including child molestation, to register as a
sex offender until age 25. A.R.S. § 13-3821(A)(7), (D). We review a court’s
order requiring registration for an abuse of discretion, and in making that
determination, we view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining
the ruling. See In re Javier B., 230 Ariz. 100, 104, ¶ 17 (App. 2012); In re Amber
S., 225 Ariz. 364, 366–67, ¶ 6 (App. 2010). An abuse of discretion may be
established if the court’s order is “characterized by capriciousness,
arbitrariness or by failure to conduct an adequate investigation into facts
necessary for an intelligent exercise of the court’s sentencing power.” State
v. Grier, 146 Ariz. 511, 515 (1985).

¶4           Here, J.C. contends that the court abused its discretion by
ordering registration, asserting that there was insufficient evidence
demonstrating that he is a danger to society or that the public would be
protected by registration. We disagree.

¶5            In April 2022, J.C. completed a psychosexual evaluation with
Dr. Mogrovejo. Dr. Mogrovejo’s report indicated that J.C. showed no
intention to change, had not cooperated with Sexual Maladaptive
Behavioral Treatment, showed little remorse for his actions, and blamed his
victims for his conduct. Dr. Mogrovejo recommended inpatient treatment,
and she concluded that J.C. was a risk to society.

¶6           In March 2023, ADJC’s treatment update indicated that J.C.
had been “reluctant to work on his deviant sexual arousal and minimize[d]

                                        2
                      IN RE DELINQUENCY OF J.C.
                          Decision of the Court

his offense,” “struggle[d] completing his stages of accomplishment
workbooks,” and “appear[ed] fearful to take responsibility for his offense.”

¶7            In May 2023, Dr. Leclerc completed a second psychosexual
evaluation, noting that J.C. was not further along in treatment and was
unlikely to make substantial progress before being released from ADJC in
July. Dr. Leclerc recommended that J.C. be required to register and stated
that, regardless of registration status, J.C. should continue treatment to
“address his inappropriate sexual interest in females ages 6 to 13, his
cognitive distortions supportive of sexually abusive behavior, and to
develop an adequate relapse prevention plan.”

¶8            In June, J.C.’s probation officer reported that ADJC’s records
indicated J.C. had been mostly compliant during the treatment process,
with three rules violations between May and June: two for refusing to
attend or participate in a required treatment program, and one for his room
not being inspection ready.

¶9             Based on this evidence, and after hearing argument from
counsel, the juvenile court ordered sex-offender registration, expressing
concern about (1) J.C.’s significant regression in treatment, (2) reports
indicating J.C.’s “lack of effort” toward treatment, (3) psychosexual
evaluations noting J.C.’s sexually abusive behavior and lack of
accountability, and (4) testing results suggesting J.C. was still attracted to
young children. Citing public safety concerns and the lack of a relapse
prevention program, the court ordered registration until age 25 based on
“the totality of the circumstances.”

¶10          J.C. contends that the court improperly relied on an
“outdated,” pre-treatment opinion—Dr. Leclerc’s May 2023 psychosexual
evaluation concerning J.C.’s risk to re-offend—and ignored J.C.’s more
recent treatment history showing substantial compliance with treatment as
he neared his July 2023 release. But the May 2023 evaluation was only
months before his release and was clearly relevant to the “totality of the
circumstances.”

¶11           Moreover, the juvenile court relied on more than just Dr.
Leclerc’s evaluation. The court reviewed and considered J.C.’s treatment
records covering more than a year, psychiatric progress notes,
psychological reports, and intake assessments. There was sufficient
evidence in the record to support the court’s decision to order registration.

¶12        Finally, J.C. asserts the court ordered registration without
knowing anything about future treatment, and that the court based its

                                      3
                      IN RE DELINQUENCY OF J.C.
                          Decision of the Court

decision on unsound reasoning and an inadequate investigation. But the
court considered J.C.’s future treatment plans, voicing a concern about J.C.’s
“lack of [a] relapse [prevention] plan.” And, as detailed above, the overall
record reflects a detailed investigation into J.C.’s mental health, as well as
his treatment records.

                              CONCLUSION

¶13           The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering
sex-offender registration until age 25. We affirm.

                          AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                          FILED: AA

                                        4