Opinion
No. 2 CA-JV 2020-0047
08-25-2020
IN RE T.B.
COUNSEL Alewelt Law and Consulting PLLC, Phoenix By Jennifer Alewelt 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. JV20190168
The Honorable Lisa I. Abrams, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Alewelt Law and Consulting PLLC, Phoenix
By Jennifer Alewelt
Counsel for Minor
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 This is an appeal from the juvenile court's orders adjudicating T.B. delinquent, finding him in violation of the terms of his probation, and placing him on juvenile intensive probation. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the entire record and has found "no arguable issues to raise on appeal." See also In re Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258 , 163 Ariz. 484, 486 (App. 1989) (applying Anders to appeals in delinquency proceedings). Counsel has requested that this court search the record for reversible error.
¶2 Consistent with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and are satisfied it supports counsel's recitation of the facts. Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court's orders, see In re John M., 201 Ariz. 424, ¶ 7 (App. 2001), the evidence established that the court adjudicated T.B. delinquent as the result of a plea agreement in September 2019 and placed him on probation for a period of twelve months.
¶3 In November 2019, T.B. and a few others visited a car dealer, taking the keys to two vehicles with them, and returning that night to take the cars, driving them through a fence. T.B. was seen with the car at a gas station, and the vehicle was later found. Later, in January 2020, T.B. threatened a woman who was in the park with her children and other family members, telling her he would kill her if she did not buy him cigarettes, while holding a gun in his pocket and then hitting her car with it as she drove away.
¶4 Two new delinquency petitions were filed thereafter, alleging in one that T.B. had committed unlawful use of a means of transportation, second-degree burglary, and aggravated robbery and in the other that T.B. had committed attempted robbery and possession of drug paraphernalia. The state filed a petition to revoke T.B.'s probation as well. After a contested hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated T.B. delinquent as to the attempted robbery and unlawful use of a means of transportation charges and found him to be in violation of the terms of his probation. The court
placed T.B. on juvenile intensive probation until his nineteenth birthday, which was then approximately two years away.
¶5 We conclude substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's adjudication of delinquency, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1001, 13-1803(A), 13-1902(A), and the court's disposition was statutorily authorized. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1), (B), (D). We have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review, see Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. The court's judgment of delinquency and its disposition are therefore affirmed.