Opinion
1 CA-JV 12-0214
03-28-2013
IN RE EBIN P.
Sheila Sullivan Polk, Yavapai County Attorney by Tanaaz R. Wheeler, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney at Law by Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney for Appellant
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
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication -
103(G), Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct.;
Rule 28, ARCAP)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
Cause No. V1300JV820060067
The Honorable Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge
AFFIRM
Sheila Sullivan Polk, Yavapai County Attorney
by Tanaaz R. Wheeler, Deputy County Attorney
Attorneys for Appellee
Camp Verde Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney at Law
by Robert D. Rosanelli
Attorney for Appellant
Phoenix PORTLEY, Judge ¶1 Ebin P. ("Ebin"), a delinquent child, appeals the Yavapai County Juvenile Court disposition order committing him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections ("ADJC"). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Ebin was placed on intensive probation on May 2, 2011, after being adjudicated for theft, escape in the third degree, runaway and probation violations. He was continued on intensive probation on November 21, 2011, after his adjudication for criminal damage and probation violation, and again on April 9, 2012, after his shoplifting and probation violation adjudication. ¶3 Less than a month later, the Yavapai County Attorney filed a petition to revoke his probation because Ebin allegedly fled from his probation officer, failed to charge his GPS unit, and removed it without authorization. After the court issued a warrant for his arrest, Ebin voluntarily appeared and admitted to violating probation. He was committed to ADJC until the age of eighteen or a period of twelve months on September 4, 2012.
DISCUSSION
¶4 Ebin argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing him to ADJC. We review a juvenile court's disposition order for an abuse of discretion. In re Nickolas T., 223 Ariz. 403, 404, ¶ 4, 224 P.3d 219, 220 (App. 2010). Furthermore, "[t]he juvenile court has broad discretion to determine an appropriate disposition for a delinquent juvenile." In re Niky R., 203 Ariz. 387, 390, ¶ 10, 55 P.3d 81, 84 (App. 2002). ¶5 Ebin contends that the court abused its discretion because it did not consider the Commitment Guidelines to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections ("Guidelines") embodied in the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration section 6-304(C)(1). The Guidelines state:
1. When considering the commitment of a juvenile to the care and custody of ADJC, the juvenile court shall:Ariz. Code of Judicial Admin. § 6-304(C)(1): Commitment Guidelines to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. ¶6 The Guidelines are not, however, mandatory and do not limit the discretion of the juvenile court. Pinal Cnty. Juv. Delinquency Action No. JV-9404492, 186 Ariz. 236, 238, 921 P.2d 36, 38 (App. 1996). A court must consider the Guidelines, In re Melissa K., 197 Ariz. 491, 495, ¶ 14, 4 P.3d 1034, 1038 (App. 2000), but "should not apply the [G]uidelines in a mechanical fashion but [instead should] determine whether, under the unique circumstances of the particular juvenile, commitment to ADJC is appropriate." Niky R., 203 Ariz. at 390, ¶ 13, 55 P.3d at 84. ¶7 Here, the commitment order states that the court "consider[ed] the commitment guidelines that are currently in effect pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 41-2816 [and] 8-246," and concluded that "the public's safety requires that [Ebin] be committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections." We agree. ¶8 The record supports the finding that Ebin was a danger to the community. His probation officer testified and opined that Ebin is a "very high risk young man in the community to himself and to others." Moreover, the youngster had been adjudicated delinquent eighteen times, had ten referrals in 2012, had been on probation for more than two years and had been on intensive probation since May 2011. ¶9 The record also reflects that the court considered less restrictive alternatives but that ADJC was Ebin's final opportunity for rehabilitation. Ebin had been placed on house arrest, and both standard and intensive probation. He had been ordered to participate in myriad services to mitigate his delinquent behavior without success. Residential treatment had been considered but the director did not find Ebin to be an appropriate candidate for the program. Consequently, it is clear that the juvenile court considered ADJC commitment "as a final opportunity for rehabilitation." Ariz. Code of Judicial Admin. § 6-304(C)(1)(b). ¶10 Ebin also complains that the court did not list other relevant factors it considered before he was committed to ADJC. The court knew his juvenile history and was not required to make any specific factual findings. We assume that the judge followed and applied the law. Niky R. , 203 Ariz. at 392, ¶ 21, 55 P.3d at 86. Consequently, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by committing Ebin to ADJC.
a. Only commit those juveniles who are adjudicated for a delinquent act and whom the court believes require placement in a secure care facility for the protection of the community;
b. Consider commitment to ADJC as a final opportunity for rehabilitation of the juvenile, as well as a way of holding the juvenile accountable for serious delinquent act or acts;
c. Give special consideration to the nature of the offense, the level of risk the juvenile poses to the community, and whether appropriate less restrictive alternatives to commitment exist within the community; and
d. Clearly identify, in the commitment order, the offense or offenses for which the juvenile is being committed and any other relevant factors that the court determines as reasons to consider the juvenile a risk to the community.
Ebin had been ordered to participate in the following services to help his rehabilitation: drug testing; community service; anger management classes; counseling; the Detention Substance Abuse Treatment Program; a MADD victim impact panel; a Juvenile Drug Court proceeding observation; the Firefighter Leadership Academy; the "Think About It" group with Tony Himes; and an art project depicting a positive lifestyle.
CONCLUSION
¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile's disposition.
____________
MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge
________________________
MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Presiding Judge
____________
PHILIP HALL, Judge