Opinion
2 CA-JV 2021-0090
10-28-2021
In re C.B.
Law Offices of Ramai L. Alvarez, Globe By Ramai L. Alvarez Counsel for Minor
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Greenlee County No. JV202000013 The Honorable Monica L. Stauffer, Judge
Law Offices of Ramai L. Alvarez, Globe
By Ramai L. Alvarez
Counsel for Minor
Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Brearcliffe and Judge Espinosa concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
EPPICH, Presiding Judge:
¶1 C.B., born in January 2005, appeals from the juvenile court's July 2021 order finding he had violated probation and committing him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) for a minimum of six months not to exceed his eighteenth birthday and ordering that he remain in secure care pending further order of the court or until he completes his minimum stay. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she reviewed the record but found no "arguable question of law" to raise on appeal, and asking us to review the record for fundamental error. See In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486 (App. 1989) (juveniles adjudicated delinquent have constitutional right to Anders appeal). We affirm.
¶2 Consistent with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and are satisfied it supports counsel's recitation of the facts. Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court's order, see In re Julio L., 197 Ariz. 1, ¶ 6 (2000), the evidence shows that C.B. was placed on twelve months' standard probation in October 2020 after admitting to one count of aggravated criminal damage. In June 2021, the state filed a petition to revoke probation, alleging C.B. had violated numerous conditions of his probation.
¶3 At the conclusion of a contested evidentiary hearing in July 2021, the juvenile court found C.B. to be in violation of five of the six allegations asserted in the petition to revoke probation. The record supports the court's findings. Specifically, it shows that in June 2021, C.B. admitted to a probation officer the following: he had broken into some vehicles and had removed items from those vehicles, including a gun; he had consumed alcohol, a fact that was supported by urine and breathalyzer tests; and, he had associated with another juvenile who was on probation. And the record establishes the court appropriately exercised its discretion in ordering C.B. committed to ADJC. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e); In re John G., 191 Ariz. 205, ¶ 8 (App. 1998) ("We will not disturb a juvenile court's disposition order absent an abuse of discretion.").
The minute entry ruling from the July 2021 evidentiary hearing mistakenly recites that C.B. violated the terms of his probation on a basis not alleged by the state, in addition to the five alleged violations found by the juvenile court.
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's violation findings and its disposition.