Opinion
No. 2 CA-JV 2017-0033
06-07-2017
IN RE D.R.
COUNSEL Bradley D. Beauchamp, Gila County Attorney By Patricia Pfeiffer, Deputy County Attorney, Globe Counsel for State Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Minor
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. JV201600074
The Honorable Bryan B. Chambers, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Bradley D. Beauchamp, Gila County Attorney
By Patricia Pfeiffer, Deputy County Attorney, Globe
Counsel for State Emily Danies, Tucson
Counsel for Minor
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Miller and Judge Howard concurred. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge:
The Hon. Joseph W. Howard, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court.
¶1 D.R. was adjudicated delinquent in October 2016 after he admitted he had committed attempted criminal trespass and had violated his probation in another matter. The juvenile court placed D.R. on a twelve-month term of probation and, after a contested restitution hearing, ordered him to pay restitution of $3,365.00. D.R. appeals solely from the court's restitution order.
D.R. was adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation in a separate order that preceded the restitution hearing and order, which the juvenile court had expressly delayed to await the adjudication of D.R.'s codefendant. --------
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), which also applies to juveniles, see In re Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237 (App. 1989), avowing she has reviewed the record and found "[n]o arguable question of law" to raise on appeal. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), she has provided a "detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record." She asks this court to review the record for fundamental error.
¶3 Pursuant to Anders and as requested, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error with respect to the restitution order, and have found no errors, fundamental or otherwise. D.R. agreed to pay restitution "up to $3,365.00" and the record supports the juvenile court's ruling, entered after a contested restitution hearing, ordering D.R. to pay $3,365.00 in restitution for damages to the victim's home for which he was jointly and severally liable with his codefendant. See A.R.S. § 8-344(A).
¶4 Therefore, we affirm the restitution order.