Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 18-0247
12-13-2018
IN RE ISAAC D.
COUNSEL Coconino County Public Defender's Office, Flagstaff By Sandra L. J. Diehl Counsel for Appellant Coconino County Attorney's Office, Flagstaff By Angela R. Kircher 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Coconino County
Nos. JV2017-00269 JV2018-00022 JV2018-00076 JV2018-00083
The Honorable Ted S. Reed, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Coconino County Public Defender's Office, Flagstaff
By Sandra L. J. Diehl
Counsel for Appellant
Coconino County Attorney's Office, Flagstaff
By Angela R. Kircher
Counsel for Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge James P. Beene joined.
CRUZ, Judge:
¶1 Isaac D. (the "Juvenile") timely appeals from his commitment to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections ("ADJC"). This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484 (App. 1989). Counsel for the Juvenile has advised this Court that counsel found no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. The Juvenile was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona; he has not done so. After reviewing the record, we find no fundamental error and affirm the juvenile court's disposition.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 The Juvenile admitted to a charge of disorderly conduct (class 1 misdemeanor) from a petition dated December 28, 2017. The Juvenile admitted to a second count of disorderly conduct from a petition filed February 14, 2018. The Juvenile admitted to aggravated assault against a correctional employee (class 5 felony) from a petition dated April 30, 2018. Finally, the Juvenile admitted to criminal damage (class 1 misdemeanor) from a petition dated May 2, 2018.
¶3 The juvenile court scheduled a disposition hearing for each count listed above on June 18, 2018. At disposition, the juvenile court committed the Juvenile to ADJC until his eighteenth birthday, with a minimum of six months, and ordered the Juvenile to participate in any services arranged for him through ADJC providers.
DISCUSSION
¶4 We have reviewed the entire record for fundamental, reversible error and find none. See Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. at 488. The court found that the Juvenile knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered admissions to two counts of disorderly conduct, and one count each of aggravated assault on a correctional employee and misdemeanor criminal damage. The punishment imposed is lawful. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-341(A)(1)(e). The Juvenile was present and represented by counsel at all critical stages.
CONCLUSION
¶5 We affirm the juvenile court's disposition. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to the Juvenile's
representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform the Juvenile of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(A); State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984).