Opinion
No. 2 CA-JV 2019-0084
12-04-2019
IN RE J.C.
COUNSEL Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Gila County
No. S0400JV20040099
The Honorable Bryan B. Chambers, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Emily Danies, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. STARING, Presiding Judge:
¶1 J.C. appeals from the juvenile court's order denying his request that his juvenile records be sealed. He argues the court "committed fundamental error" because the records should be "kept confidential and with[]held from public inspection" pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-208(G). We affirm.
¶2 In February 2006, J.C. (then sixteen years old) admitted having committed sexual abuse of a minor under the age of fifteen. In April and May 2019, J.C.—who is in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections (DOC)—sent letters to the juvenile court asking his juvenile record be sealed because he had suffered several assaults because his offense had become known and because DOC was "using [his] juvenile record against [him]." The court set a hearing.
¶3 The state responded, noting that there was no process for sealing juvenile records in Arizona and that J.C. was ineligible to have his adjudication set aside under A.R.S. § 8-348 or his records destroyed under A.R.S. § 8-349 due to the nature of his juvenile offense and the fact he had been convicted of felony offenses as an adult. The state also noted, however, that the court had authority under § 8-208(G) to keep his records confidential and withhold them from public inspection if the record involved a clear public interest in confidentiality. The state argued no such interest existed and, in any event, DOC and law enforcement agencies would nonetheless have access to his records and, thus, relief under § 8-208(G) would "not accomplish what [J.C.] is requesting."
¶4 At the hearing, J.C. opted to proceed despite not having received the state's response. He asserted that he had been placed in "bad situations with people" because law enforcement had disclosed his juvenile offense and that DOC was considering the offense "under classification, on release and everything." He asked the juvenile court to seal his record or, at minimum, "take it away from the police" and DOC. The court denied J.C.'s request, agreeing with the state that he did not qualify to have his adjudication set aside or his records destroyed. The court did not address § 8-208(G). This appeal followed.
¶5 On appeal, J.C. argues he is entitled to relief under § 8-208(G), which gives a juvenile court discretion to "order that the records be kept confidential and withheld from public inspection if the court determines that the subject matter of any record involves a clear public interest in confidentiality." He asserts there is a public interest in keeping records confidential because of the public interest against assaults and other crimes being committed against him due to his juvenile offense.
The state did not file an answering brief. In our discretion, however, we decline to treat the state's failure to respond as a confession of error. See State v. Healer, 246 Ariz. 441, n.5 (App. 2019) ("Generally, failure to file an answering brief constitutes confession of error."); State v. Rhodes, 219 Ariz. 476, n.2 (App. 2008) (court has discretion whether to regard failure to file answering brief as confession of error).
¶6 No Arizona case discusses what might constitute a "clear public interest in confidentiality" under § 8-208(G). That statute is consistent with article IV, § 22 of the Arizona Constitution, which directs that juvenile proceedings be public except to protect victim privacy or when there is "a clear public interest in confidentiality"—a sentiment also reflected in Rule 19(B), Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. The interest J.C. identifies, however, would apply to any juvenile who had committed an offense that might draw unwanted attention. And, that outcome would be inconsistent with related statutes. See State v. Gates, 243 Ariz. 451, ¶ 7 (2018) ("[s]tatutes relating to the same subject or having the same general purpose" should be construed together). As the juvenile court and state recognized, the nature of J.C.'s offense and his adult criminal convictions bar him from having his adjudication set aside or his juvenile records destroyed. See §§ 8-348(I)(3), 8-349(A), (B), (C), (D). In light of Arizona's constitutional preference for open juvenile proceedings and our legislature's decision to specifically exclude those in J.C.'s position from relief under §§ 8-348 or 8-349, we cannot agree the generally applicable interest J.C. identifies could require his records to be withheld from the public.
J.C. did not argue below that the juvenile court could grant relief under § 8-208(G). Because we conclude he is not entitled to relief under that statute, we need not address whether any error was fundamental. See State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, ¶ 21 (2018) ("[T]he first step in fundamental error review is determining whether trial error exists."). --------
¶7 We affirm the juvenile court's order denying J.C.'s request to seal his juvenile records.