No. 2 CA-JV 2018-0099
COUNSEL Emily Danies, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Santa Cruz County
Nos. JV17172, JV17174, and JV17191
The Honorable Thomas Fink, Judge
COUNSEL Emily Danies, Tucson
Counsel for Minor
Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred. EPPICH, Judge:
¶1 S.M. was adjudicated delinquent in November 2017 and February 2018 after she admitted committing multiple offenses in October and December 2017. The juvenile court ultimately placed S.M. on Juvenile Intensive Probation until her eighteenth birthday. In March 2018, the state filed a petition to revoke probation based on a variety of violations, and S.M. admitted four of the charges in the petition. At a disposition hearing in May 2018, the court ordered S.M. committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) until her eighteenth birthday. This appeal followed.
S.M. will turn eighteen in October 2018. --------
¶2 Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has searched the record but found no arguable issue of law. See In re Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486 (App. 1989) (juveniles adjudicated delinquent have constitutional right to Anders appeal). Counsel has requested that we give S.M. or her guardian an opportunity to file a supplemental brief. We deny that request. This court has limited the application of Anders in delinquency appeals to the requirement that we review the record for fundamental error; a minor or guardian is not permitted to file a supplemental brief. In re Cochise Cty. Juv. Action No. DL88-00037, 164 Ariz. 417, 419-20 (App. 1990).
¶3 Pursuant to Anders and as requested, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. The record supports the juvenile court's finding that S.M.'s admissions to the probation violations were knowing, voluntary and intelligent and that she provided an adequate factual basis to support them. Specifically, S.M. admitted failing to abide by her in-home detention policy in February and March 2018, having unexcused absences from school in March 2018, being suspended from school for cheating in February 2018, failing to participate in out-patient counseling in March 2018, and testing positive for marijuana in February 2018. And the record establishes the court appropriately exercised its discretion in ordering S.M. committed to ADJC. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e); 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.").
¶4 The juvenile court's order committing S.M. to ADJC is affirmed.