Opinion
J-S52011-18 No. 195 MDA 2018
10-22-2018
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.A.D.-B., A MINOR APPEAL OF: J.A.D.-B., A MINOR
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered January 9, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-14-JV-0000070-2017 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MCLAUGHLIN, J., and STRASSBURGER, MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, J.A.D.-B., a minor, appeals from the dispositional order entered on January 9, 2018, after he was adjudicated delinquent of aggravated assault, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person. We affirm.
Briefly, Appellant's adjudication of delinquency stemmed from an altercation between Appellant and another juvenile, J.F., during which Appellant shot J.F. six times with a BB gun. The pellets struck J.F. in the chest, cheek, temple, and right eye, causing him severe injuries including permanent loss of vision in his right eye. After hearings conducted on December 13, 2017, and January 5, 2018, the juvenile court adjudicated Appellant delinquent of the above-stated offenses. At a dispositional hearing held on January 5, 2018, the court ordered that Appellant be placed in George Junior Republic Diagnostic Program.
Appellant was evaluated in that program, and after the court conducted another hearing on April 6, 2018, it issued an order placing Appellant in George Junior's Special Needs Program.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and he also timely complied with the juvenile court's order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On May 2, 2018, the court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion. Herein, Appellant presents the following two issues for our review:
I. Did the [juvenile] [c]ourt improperly find that [Appellant] did not act in self-defense before adjudicating him delinquent of the offenses of [a]ggravated and [s]imple assault?Appellant's Brief at 7.
II. Did the [juvenile] [c]ourt abuse it's [sic] discretion by placing the juvenile at George [Junior] Republic Diagnostic Program, rather than continuing him on the least restrictive alternative of remaining with his family on either [the] Electronic Monitoring Program, or on Probation[,] where he had done well for over two months?
Preliminarily, we note that "[t]he Juvenile Act grants broad discretion to juvenile courts, and we will not disturb the lower court's disposition absent a manifest abuse of discretion." In Interest of N.C., 171 A.3d 275, 280 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing In re C.A.G., 89 A.3d 704, 709 (Pa. Super. 2014), and In the Interest of J.D., 798 A.2d 210, 213 (Pa. Super. 2002)).
Here, we have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have reviewed the thorough and articulate opinion of the Honorable Katherine V. Oliver of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County. We conclude that Judge Oliver's extensive, well-reasoned opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Oliver's opinion as our own and affirm the dispositional order on that basis.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/22/2018
Image materials not available for display.