Opinion
No. 2 CA-JV 2019-0015
07-10-2019
IN RE N.P.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. JV20140514
The Honorable Wayne E. Yehling, Judge
The Honorable Joan Wagener, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender
By Susan C. L. Kelly, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Minor
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. EPPICH, Presiding Judge:
¶1 N.P. appeals from the juvenile court's disposition order revoking his placement on Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision (JIPS) and terminating his probation unsuccessfully. We affirm the court's order.
¶2 N.P.'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), stating she has identified no issue that may be raised on appeal. She 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 order. See In re Julio L., 197 Ariz. 1, ¶ 6 (2000). N.P. was initially placed on a six-month term of juvenile probation in October 2014, after admitting the offense of criminal damage. A second, six-month term of probation was imposed on June 1, 2015, after N.P. admitted his failure to complete certain probation conditions.
¶4 N.P. next appeared in juvenile court on a delinquency petition filed in February 2017. Although he was initially on release pending an adjudication, N.P. was twice returned to detention after violating release conditions. In June 2017, N.P. was placed on JIPS for a twelve-month term after he admitted the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia.
¶5 In February 2018, N.P. was charged with and admitted violating a JIPS provision, and the juvenile court extended his JIPS probation until October 31, 2018. That April, N.P. was charged with and admitted possession of marijuana for sale, and, in May, the court placed him on JIPS until his eighteenth birthday. The following month, N.P. absconded from his placement in violation of JIPS conditions. He remained on JIPS and was placed in detention until his release in November. A month later, in December 2018, the state sought revocation of his JIPS probation, alleging he had absconded from his placement and had committed several other violations of his probation conditions. He admitted three violations, and the court imposed a two-week term of detention as a consequence and terminated his probation unsuccessfully.
N.P. turned eighteen in May 2019.
¶6 Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's determination that N.P. violated conditions of JIPS, and the court's disposition was compliant with governing law. See A.R.S. §§ 8-341(A); 8-354(B). 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 revocation adjudication and disposition.