1 CA-JV 12-0188
Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Diane Meloche, Appeals Bureau Chief Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Christina Phillis, Maricopa County Public Advocate By Devra N. Ellexson, Deputy Public Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Mesa
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE
CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
(Not for Publication - Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28)
Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County
Cause No. JV-184636
The Honorable Cari Harrison, Judge
Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney
By Diane Meloche, Appeals Bureau Chief
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix Christina Phillis, Maricopa County Public Advocate
By Devra N. Ellexson, Deputy Public Advocate
Attorneys for Appellant
Mesa THOMPSON, Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 788 P.2d 1235 (App. 1989). Counsel for Jaydenn B. (juvenile) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting that this court conduct an Anders review of the record. ¶2 In July 2011, juvenile, then twelve years old, had the ten year old victim perform oral sex on him in a park restroom. The state charged juvenile with one count of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen, a class two felony, and two counts of molestation of a child, also class two felonies. As the result of a plea agreement, juvenile pled to one amended count of attempted sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen, a class three felony, and the juvenile court dismissed the molestation charges with prejudice. During the adjudication hearing, the court found that juvenile had entered into the plea agreement voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and not as a result of force, threats or promises other than those included within the plea agreement. The court advised juvenile of his constitutional rights and the potential consequences of accepting the plea agreement. Juvenile's attorney provided a factual basis to support the charge and the court issued an order finding the juvenile delinquent. The court ordered that juvenile be placed on probation, with a sixty day deferred detention stay, and to participate in the Chaperone Program through the Youth Development Institute (intensive outpatient treatment). Juvenile timely appealed. ¶3 Our review of the record reveals no error. The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine the appropriate disposition of a delinquent juvenile and its disposition determination will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Themika M., 206 Ariz. 553, 554, ¶ 5, 81 P.3d 344, 345 (App. 2003) (citations omitted). We have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. Accordingly, we affirm. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), juvenile's counsel's obligations in this appeal are at an end. Counsel need do no more than inform the juvenile of the status of the appeal and the juvenile's future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 107(A). See also Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 107(J). ¶5 We affirm the adjudication and disposition.
The molestation charges were unrelated to the park incident.
JON W. THOMPSON, Judge
PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge
DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Judge