Opinion
No. 2 CA-JV 2017-0204
05-08-2018
IN RE E.O.
COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By Susan C. L. Kelly, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Minor
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 103(G). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. JV20170188
The Honorable Brenden J. Griffin, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender
By Susan C. L. Kelly, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Minor
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 E.O. appeals from the juvenile court's order adjudicating her delinquent for an assault against her mother, M.T., placing her on a one-year term of probation, and ordering her to pay $937.16 in restitution. We affirm the court's adjudication and disposition.
¶2 E.O.'s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), and asks this court to review the record for error. See In re Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 485-87 (App. 1989) (affording juveniles adjudicated delinquent Anders-type review on appeal).
¶3 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court's adjudication. In re Julio L., 197 Ariz. 1, ¶ 6 (2000). In March 2017, thirteen-year-old E.O. was about to be transferred to her father's custody per parenting-time arrangements when she punched M.T. in the face, causing bruising of M.T.'s right eye. As a result of the injury and a related sinus infection, M.T. incurred $937.16 in medical and transportation expenses and lost wages. At the disposition hearing, E.O.'s attorney told the juvenile court E.O. had no source of income and "the only way" she could make restitution would be through the juvenile court center's Restitution Accountability Program (RAP). The court ordered E.O. to pay restitution in full, placing her on probation and directing her to participate in RAP.
Through the RAP program, juvenile offenders who are too young to be employed work on the juvenile court's Graffiti Abatement/Community Service Work Crew Program and are credited for their work by payments made to the victim by a special victim's compensation fund, in satisfaction of their restitution obligations.
¶4 We conclude substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's determination that E.O. committed the alleged assault, see A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(1), and the amount of restitution awarded, see In re Andrew C., 215 Ariz. 366, ¶ 9 (App. 2007). In addition, the court's disposition was compliant with governing law. See A.R.S. §§ 8-341(A), (B); 8-344(A), (C). We have found no fundamental error, no reversible error, and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm the court's delinquency adjudication and disposition.
Counsel suggests we consider, as "arguable issues," whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding M.T.'s testimony credible with respect to the assault and the economic losses she incurred. Despite the court's reference to § 8-344 and extensive discussion of the RAP program at the disposition hearing, counsel also suggests the court "appears to have failed to consider [E.O.]'s 'ability to pay,'" as required by § 8-344(A), before ordering restitution. Counsel seems to have used the phrase "arguable issue" in "the unusual way" the Supreme Court used it in Anders, to mean "an issue arguably supporting the appeal," even though the issue "does not warrant a merits brief." Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285 (2000). We concur with counsel's apparent assessment that an appeal would be "wholly frivolous," id., as none of these suggested issues warrants a brief on the merits. See, e.g., In re James P., 214 Ariz. 420, ¶ 24 (appellate court "will not reweigh the evidence or consider the credibility of witnesses on appeal"). --------