Opinion
2 CA-JV 2022-0092
01-12-2023
In re Delinquency of A.M.
Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Minor.
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County No. JV201900096 The Honorable Terry Bannon, Judge Pro Tempore.
Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Minor.
Presiding Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Sklar concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ECKERSTROM, PRESIDING JUDGE.
¶1 Seventeen-year-old A.M. appeals from the juvenile court's order committing him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) after he admitted to violating the terms of his probation by failing to abide by the court's in-home detention order and leaving his residence without permission from his probation officer. We affirm.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating she has "searched the record" but found "[n]o arguable question of law." See In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 485-87 (App. 1989) (applying Anders to juvenile delinquency matters). Consistent with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), counsel has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case, with citations to the record," and has asked us to search the record for fundamental error.
¶3 Based on his admission to possessing tobacco on school grounds, A.M. was adjudicated incorrigible in February 2020, and the juvenile court placed him on six months' supervised probation. Four months later, A.M. admitted to violating the terms of his probation and to two counts of running away from his home. The court again adjudicated him incorrigible and placed him on protective supervised probation for nine months.
¶4 In March 2021, A.M. admitted to running away from his home and to shoplifting, and the juvenile court adjudicated him incorrigible and delinquent, respectively. See A.R.S. § 13-1805(H) (shoplifting of property less than $1,000 in value is class one misdemeanor). The court placed him on six months' supervised probation. The next month, A.M. admitted to violating the terms of his probation by changing his residence without notifying the probation department, and the court ordered him to wear a GPS ankle monitor. In June 2021, A.M. admitted to violating the terms of his probation by leaving the state without permission, and, the following month, he admitted to removing the GPS ankle monitor. See A.R.S. § 13-3725 (interference with monitoring device is class four felony). The court sent A.M. to Canyon State Academy, where he engaged in the program and was released in November 2021.
¶5 In January 2022, however, a warrant was issued for A.M.'s arrest after he failed to abide by the juvenile court's in-home detention order by leaving his residence without permission from his probation officer. In April 2022, A.M. was detained and admitted to so violating the terms of his probation. The court adjudicated A.M. delinquent and committed him to the ADJC for a thirty-day secure care order. This appeal followed that order.
¶6 The record supports the juvenile court's findings that A.M.'s admissions were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and that the factual basis was adequate to support it. See Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 220(b)-(c). The record also establishes that the court appropriately exercised its discretion in committing A.M. to the ADJC. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e); Ariz. Code of Jud. Admin. § 6-304(C)(1); see also In re John G., 191 Ariz. 205, ¶ 8 (App. 1998) ("We will not disturb a juvenile court's disposition order absent an abuse of discretion.").
¶7 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have found no fundamental, prejudicial error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's order adjudicating A.M. delinquent and committing him to the ADJC.