Court Opinion

ID: 9839861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 16:04:30.135719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:02.757657
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 G.B.

                             No. 1 CA-JV 23-0102
                               FILED 9-14-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                             No. JV207577
            The Honorable Genene Dyer, Judge Pro Tempore

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Advocate, Phoenix
By Alicia Merschen-Perez
Counsel for Appellant

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

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which Presiding
Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.
                     IN RE DELINQUENCY OF G.B.
                         Decision of the Court

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1           Gabriel1 appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating his
probation as unsuccessful. We find no error and affirm.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2             When Gabriel was 17, the State charged him with aggravated
robbery and misconduct with weapons. He eventually pled delinquent to
solicitation to commit robbery, a Class 6 designated felony. See A.R.S.
§§ 13-1002(B)(4), 13-1902. The court placed Gabriel on intensive probation
for one year, which required him to participate in work, school, community
service, or counseling for at least 32 hours per week. When he was not
participating in one of those activities, he was to remain at home. The court
also ordered electronic monitoring for four weeks.

¶3            At first, Gabriel complied with his probation conditions. But
after the probation department removed his electronic monitoring unit, he
began leaving home without permission. He also began using THC and
refused drug tests several times. At Gabriel’s probation officer’s request,
the juvenile court reinstated electronic monitoring for six more weeks.

¶4           Several months later, at the request of Gabriel’s probation
officer, the court held a review hearing. The probation officer
recommended that Gabriel be unsuccessfully terminated because he was
often away from home with unknown whereabouts, had been using THC,
had not completed his treatment, and had not been working or attending
school.

¶5             Gabriel responded by claiming that when the probation
officer visited his home and did not find him, he was either at his apartment
complex’s vending machine, walking around nearby, or working at his
uncle’s taco shop. He also claimed that he had missed treatment services
because the address from which he was supposed to be picked up “had
gotten mixed up.” Gabriel asked the juvenile court to end probation
supervision, but he requested a successful or administrative release so his
records could be destroyed or set aside.

¶6           The juvenile court expressed concerns that Gabriel had been
generally non-compliant throughout his probation. The court decided that

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

                                     2
                      IN RE DELINQUENCY OF G.B.
                          Decision of the Court

Gabriel would not “get[] the benefit of an administrative release” and
ordered that he be “unsuccessfully released from probation.”

¶7           Gabriel appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S.
§§ 8-235(A) and 12-120.21(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶8             The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine whether
a juvenile’s probation should be terminated unsuccessfully, and we will not
disturb the court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion. In re Themika M.,
206 Ariz. 553, 554, ¶ 5 (App. 2003).

¶9            Gabriel first argues that the court abused its discretion by
ordering the termination as unsuccessful. He raises the same arguments he
presented to the juvenile court: he has been working at his uncle’s taco shop
and missed treatment only because of a transportation issue. We will not
reverse on these arguments, which are based on factual disputes left to the
juvenile court’s discretion, and “we will not reweigh the evidence . . . on
appeal.” In re James P., 214 Ariz. 420, 425, ¶ 24 (App. 2007).

¶10           Second, Gabriel argues the court did not cite “specific
reasons” for terminating the probation unsuccessfully, although he
concedes the court “outlined issues it had with [his] probation.” This
argument is unpersuasive. Indeed, the juvenile court noted that Gabriel had
“a long history of . . . failure to comply with his probation,” which included
refusing to work or go to school, leaving his home without good cause,
refusing to drug test, failing to complete treatment, and generally being
unable to improve his behavior despite different consequences being
imposed. The court found that “for all of these reasons, the
recommendation of probation is that [Gabriel] be unsuccessfully
terminated from probation.” The court did not abuse its discretion by
following the recommendation.

¶11           Finally, Gabriel argues that the court acted punitively and
without rehabilitation in mind because Gabriel can no longer have his
records destroyed or set aside. This argument is also unavailing because the
court may order the destruction of a juvenile’s records only if the juvenile
“successfully completed the terms and conditions of probation.” A.R.S.
§ 8-349(C)(5) (emphasis added). Gabriel did not comply with his probation
terms, and thus his records may not be destroyed. This results from his
non-compliance. See Themika M., 206 Ariz. at 556, ¶ 15. The court did not
abuse its discretion by terminating the probation unsuccessfully.

                                      3
             IN RE DELINQUENCY OF G.B.
                 Decision of the Court

                    CONCLUSION

¶12   We affirm.

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

                              4