Court Opinion

ID: 9962364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 16:02:22.096223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:28.902583
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 S.M.

                             No. 1 CA-JV 23-0185
                              FILED 4-23-2024

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County
                         No. S0900JV202300129
               The Honorable Michala M. Ruechel, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Navajo County Attorney’s Office, Holbrook
By Bradley W. Carlyon
Counsel for Appellee

Whitmer Law PLLC, Prescott
By Henry Edward Whitmer
Counsel for Appellant
                      IN RE DELINQUENCY OF S.M.
                           Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which
Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1            Steven1 appeals from the juvenile court’s order adjudicating
him delinquent and imposing a nine-month probation term. Steven’s
counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v.
Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). See also In re Maricopa County Juv. Action No.
JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486 (App. 1989) (A juvenile adjudicated
delinquent has the right to an Anders appeal when appellate counsel
cannot find any arguable issue to raise on appeal.). After diligently
searching the record, counsel states that he found no non-frivolous error
and asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. See Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999).
Counsel also requested that we allow Steven to file a supplemental brief.
But a juvenile has no right to file a supplemental brief in an Anders appeal.
In re Cochise County Juv. Action No. DL88-00037, 164 Ariz. 417, 419 (App.
1990). After reviewing the record, we affirm.

              FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2             In April 2023, Steven visited the Show Low Park with two
friends. Steven and his friends removed a stall partition and a soap
dispenser from the park’s bathroom and threw rocks at the bathroom’s
front doors. A trail camera recorded him. The Navajo County Attorney’s
Office filed a delinquency petition alleging criminal damage.

¶3            Steven submitted a Memorandum of Agreement in which he
admitted to criminal nuisance violating A.R.S. § 13-2908. After an advisory
and disposition hearing, the juvenile court placed Steven on standard
probation for nine months starting August 17. The court ordered Steven to
pay the City of Show Low about $10,572 in restitution, jointly and severally
with his co-defendants, at $400 monthly. Steven was also to complete 40
hours of community service.

1      We use a pseudonym to protect the minor’s identity.

                                       2
                      IN RE DELINQUENCY OF S.M.
                           Decision of the Court

¶4            Steven appealed the delinquency finding, and we have
jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), and 12-2101(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶5           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 none.

¶6             Steven was present and represented by counsel at all stages
of the proceedings against him. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 208(a), 206(b). The
record supports the juvenile court’s findings that Steven’s admission was
knowing, voluntary, intelligent, and made with an adequate factual basis.
See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 220(c)(1). Steven admitted that he damaged the Show
Low Park bathroom. And the juvenile court found the evidence supported
the admission. We find no error in the juvenile court’s disposition. See In re
John G., 191 Ariz. 205, 207, ¶ 8 (App. 1998) (“We will not disturb a juvenile
court’s disposition order absent an abuse of discretion.”).

¶7           A juvenile court may “award a delinquent juvenile . . . [t]o a
probation department, subject to any conditions the court may impose.” See
A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(b). The court explained that although typically, the
probation would be for a “short period of time,” it placed Steven on a
nine-month probation to ensure sufficient time to pay his restitution. The
juvenile court was within its discretion to order Steven’s nine-month
standard probation term. The record reflects that the juvenile court afforded
Steven all his constitutional and statutory rights, conducting the
proceedings following the Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. The
court held appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence summarized
above was sufficient to support the court’s decision.

                                      3
                     IN RE DELINQUENCY OF S.M.
                          Decision of the Court

                              CONCLUSION

¶8             We affirm the juvenile court’s delinquency adjudication and
disposition. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations
pertaining to Steven’s representation in this appeal will end after informing
Steven 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); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(A); see also Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(J).

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

                                        4