Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 18-0139
07-31-2018
IN RE HECTOR G.
COUNSEL The Law Offices of Kelly A. Smith, Yuma By Kelly A. Smith Counsel for Appellant Yuma County Attorney's Office, Yuma By Chris A. Weede Counsel for Appellee
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Yuma County
No. S1400JV20160279
The Honorable Kathryn E. Stocking-Tate, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
The Law Offices of Kelly A. Smith, Yuma
By Kelly A. Smith
Counsel for Appellant
Yuma County Attorney's Office, Yuma
By Chris A. Weede
Counsel for Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.
MORSE, Judge:
¶1 Hector G. ("the Juvenile") timely appeals from the juvenile court's delinquency adjudication and order committing him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections ("ADJC"). After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, the Juvenile's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484 (App. 1989), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. After reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and affirm the juvenile court's disposition.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 On March 6, 2018, the State filed a petition alleging that the Juvenile had committed possession of marijuana for sale, a class 4 felony (count 1), possession of marijuana, a class 6 felony (count 2), misconduct involving weapons, a class 4 felony (count 3), and possession of narcotic drugs, a class 4 felony (count 4). On March 30, 2018, the Juvenile made an admission to count 1, and the remaining three counts were dismissed with prejudice.
¶3 At the disposition hearing on April 13, 2018, the juvenile court committed the Juvenile to ADJC until his 18th birthday, with a minimum of 30 days, and ordered the Juvenile to participate in any services arranged for him through ADJC providers.
DISCUSSION
¶4 We have reviewed the entire record for fundamental, reversible error and find none. See Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. at 488. The court found the Juvenile knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered an admission to count 1 and the punishment imposed is lawful. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-341(A)(1). The Juvenile was present and represented by counsel at all critical stages.
CONCLUSION
¶5 We affirm the juvenile court's disposition. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to the Juvenile's representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform the Juvenile of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(A); State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984).