Opinion
2 CA-JV 2022-0096
11-07-2022
In re Delinquency of D.L.
Domingo DeGrazia, Tucson Counsel for Minor
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. JV20190020 The Honorable Lisa Bibbens, Judge Pro Tempore
Domingo DeGrazia, Tucson
Counsel for Minor
Presiding Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Cattani concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ECKERSTROM, PRESIDING JUDGE:
¶1 D.L., born June 2005, appeals from the juvenile court's order committing him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) "for a minimum of thirty (30) days, not to exceed his eighteenth birthday," after he admitted the allegation in a petition to revoke his probation. We affirm.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486 (App. 1989), stating he has reviewed the record and "has found no arguable nonfrivolous questions of law, save those which Counsel believes to be harmless error." Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error.
¶3 The juvenile court adjudicated D.L. delinquent in October 2020 after he admitted allegations from several delinquency petitions, including minor in possession of liquor, disorderly conduct, theft, and attempted burglary. The court placed him on probation for a term of twelve months. In January 2021, a petition to revoke his probation was filed, and he was taken into custody pursuant to a warrant in March. D.L. admitted having violated the terms of his probation, and the court reinstated him on probation in April 2021, this time juvenile intensive probation, for a term of twelve months, and ordered him to complete certain treatment plans.
¶4 In October 2021, the state filed another petition to revoke D.L.'s probation, and D.L. admitted the allegations therein. The juvenile court ordered that he be "detained in detention for seven days" and returned him to probation. Shortly after his release, D.L. "suffered an overdose," and, after he was released from medical care, he stopped drug testing and going to school and "failed to return home." The state filed another petition to revoke probation in December. D.L. again admitted having violated the terms of his probation, and the court placed him in residential treatment services. The court-ordered placement discharged him unsuccessfully in March 2022, and the state again sought to revoke probation on that basis. D.L. admitted the allegation, and the court returned him to juvenile intensive probation.
¶5 In early May 2022, D.L. left home and failed to drug test, leading to the issuance of a bench warrant and another petition to revoke his probation. D.L. again admitted the violations and the juvenile court ordered him to "complete and validate Sycamore Canyon Academy." A month later, in July, D.L. was unsuccessfully discharged from that program, and a new petition to revoke probation was filed. After D.L. admitted having violated the terms of his probation by being discharged from the program, the court committed him to ADJC for a minimum of thirty days. The court noted that it had "exhausted every less restrictive option" and that no less restrictive alternatives were available "to ensure the minor's safety or the safety of the community."
¶6 The record supports the juvenile court's findings that D.L.'s admission to the allegation in the July 2022 petition for revocation was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and that the factual basis was adequate to support it. See Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 220(c); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 224(d). And the record establishes the court appropriately exercised its discretion in ordering D.L. committed to ADJC. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e); Ariz. Code of Jud. Admin. § 6-304; see also 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.").
¶7 Consistent with Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm the juvenile court's disposition.