Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 15-0143
10-01-2015
IN RE MICHAEL R.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Public Advocate's Office, Mesa By Suzanne Sanchez, Jennifer A. Ceppetelli Counsel for Appellant Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Maricopa County
No. JV552706
The Honorable Steven P. Lynch, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Public Advocate's Office, Mesa
By Suzanne Sanchez, Jennifer A. Ceppetelli
Counsel for Appellant
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Andrew W. Gould joined.
SWANN, Judge:
¶1 Michael R. ("Juvenile") pled delinquent to possession of drug paraphernalia. The court accepted the plea, designated the offense as a class 1 misdemeanor, and placed Juvenile on juvenile intensive probation.
¶2 Juvenile's appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484 (App. 1989). Counsel informs us that she has searched the record and can find no arguable issues, and she asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Our review of the record reveals no fundamental error. We therefore affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶3 In March 2015, the state filed a petition charging seventeen-year-old Juvenile with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, both class 6 felonies. Juvenile initially denied the charges, but later decided to accept a plea agreement under which the marijuana count would be dismissed and the paraphernalia count would be designated as a misdemeanor.
¶4 At the change of plea hearing, the court advised Juvenile of his constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence and the right to trial. The court also advised Juvenile of the types of dispositions that could be imposed, including intensive probation and electronic tracking. Juvenile indicated that he understood and that he wished to waive his rights. Juvenile's counsel then provided the factual basis for the paraphernalia count, and Juvenile stated that he agreed with it.
¶5 The court found that Juvenile had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily admitted delinquency for possession of drug paraphernalia. The court accepted the admission, entered a corresponding adjudication of delinquency, designated the offense as a misdemeanor, and dismissed the remaining count. The matter then proceeded to a disposition hearing.
¶6 At the disposition hearing, Juvenile's probation officer testified that Juvenile was required to submit to weekly drug tests, and had recently tested positive for opiates and tetrahydrocannabinol. The probation officer also testified that Juvenile had missed one of the weekly tests and had admitted to using marijuana and a prescription narcotic for which, according to the probation officer, Juvenile did not have a prescription. The probation officer further testified that Juvenile had generated a total of five probation referrals -- one for a violent offense -- and was not currently employed or attending school. The probation officer recommended that Juvenile be detained and later placed on intensive probation with electronic tracking. The state agreed with the recommendation for intensive probation. Juvenile, however, requested standard probation.
¶7 The court found that Juvenile needed to "get it together" and was "at huge risk for being involved in the adult system." The court ordered, "[b]ased on everything I've heard," that Juvenile be released to the care of his parents and placed on intensive probation, with eight weeks of electronic tracking as one of the conditions of probation. The court deferred 75 days of detention and four weeks of electronic tracking. The court expressed hope that the disposition might "give[ ] [Juvenile] some discipline, [and] kind of point[ ] [him] in the right direction."
¶8 Juvenile appeals.
DISCUSSION
¶9 We have reviewed the record for fundamental error, and find none. Juvenile was present and represented by counsel at all critical stages. The record supports the court's determination that Juvenile knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights under Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 28(C)(5). The record also reflects a factual basis for Juvenile's plea. The court imposed a legal disposition under A.R.S. §§ 8-341(A)(1)(a) and -352(C) and (E), and the disposition was supported by sufficient findings consistent with § 8-352(D).
CONCLUSION
¶10 Appellate counsel's obligations have come to an end. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Unless, upon review, counsel discovers an issue appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court, counsel must only inform Juvenile of the status of this appeal and his future options. See Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 107(A). See also Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(J).