Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 15-0300
12-22-2015
IN RE CHEYENNE H.
COUNSEL Coconino County Attorney's Office, Flagstaff By Angela R. Kircher Counsel for Appellee Coconino County Public Defender's Office, Flagstaff By Sandra L. J. Diehl Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County
Nos. JV 2014-00280, JV 2015-00159 (Consolidated)
The Honorable Margaret A. McCullough, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Coconino County Attorney's Office, Flagstaff
By Angela R. Kircher
Counsel for Appellee
Coconino County Public Defender's Office, Flagstaff
By Sandra L. J. Diehl
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Andrew W. Gould joined.
NORRIS, Judge:
¶1 Cheyenne H. timely appeals from the superior court's disposition order imposing detention not to exceed 11 months and a one-year intensive probation for shoplifting and disorderly conduct. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") §§ 13-1805(A)(1), -2904(A), (B) (2010). After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Cheyenne's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), and Maricopa Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 485-88, 788 P.2d 1235, 1236-39 (App. 1989), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881.
¶2 On June 25, 2015, Cheyenne admitted to a charge of shoplifting and a charge of disorderly conduct. Before accepting her admissions, the superior court advised her of her constitutional rights and the possible dispositional consequences of her admissions, obtained a factual basis from the State supporting her admissions, and found she had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered her admissions after waiving her constitutional rights. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 28(C).
¶3 Cheyenne was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was personally present at all critical stages. The superior court acted well within its discretion in imposing detention and intensive probation. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(b) (2014); In re John G, 191 Ariz. 205, 207, ¶ 8, 953 P.2d 1258, 1260 (App. 1998) (juvenile court's disposition order reviewed for abuse of discretion). Thus, we decline to order briefing and affirm the superior court's disposition order.
¶4 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), Cheyenne's counsel's obligations in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Cheyenne of the status of the appeal and her 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), (J).