Opinion
2 CA-JV 2024-0058
09-04-2024
In re Delinquency of K.B.
Laura Conover, Pima County Attorney By Kara Crosby, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for State Sarah Michele Martin, 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Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court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. JV20240067 The Honorable Kimberly H. Ortiz, Judge
Laura Conover, Pima County Attorney By Kara Crosby, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for State
Sarah Michele Martin, Tucson Counsel for Minor
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Sklar and Vice Chief Judge Eppich concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BREARCLIFFE, JUDGE
¶1 K.B. appeals from the juvenile court's orders adjudicating him delinquent and the following disposition. He argues the court erred by "focus[ing]" its disposition "on punishment contrary to Arizona law." We affirm.
¶2 The juvenile court adjudicated K.B. delinquent after he admitted having committed attempted aggravated assault causing serious physical injury, endangerment, and disorderly conduct. The court placed K.B. on a one-year term of probation which included as conditions that K.B. perform twenty hours of community service, write an apology letter to the victim, complete anger management and fire-setting intervention classes, and serve four weekends in detention. This appeal followed.
¶3 K.B. argues on appeal that the juvenile court improperly focused its disposition on punishment rather than rehabilitation, observing the court declined to order a psychological evaluation and commented that K.B. "ha[d] to be punished" for his conduct. "We will not disturb a juvenile court's disposition order absent an abuse of discretion." In re John G., 191 Ariz. 205, ¶ 8 (App. 1998). We will affirm a probation condition, including detention, that "does not violate basic fundamental rights and bears a relationship to the purpose of probation." In re Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-20705-3 , 133 Ariz. 296, 298 (App. 1982).
¶4 We cannot agree with K.B. that the juvenile court's decision not to order a psychological evaluation reflects any improper focus. Neither the state nor K.B.'s counsel requested any such evaluation-the prosecutor stated only that she "[did not] know if a psychological [evaluation] might be appropriate." Nor are we troubled by the court's comment that K.B. should be "punished." Although "[r]ehabilitation, not punishment, is the purpose of disposition after an adjudication of delinquency," In re Miguel R., 204 Ariz. 328, ¶ 4 (App. 2003), disciplinary probation conditions, such as detention, serve rehabilitative goals, see Pima Cnty. No. J-20705-3, 133 Ariz. at 298 (detention "clearly bears a reasonable relationship to possible rehabilitation"); see also In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JV-510312 , 183 Ariz. 116, 120 (App. 1995) (probation conditions not "unfair punishment" if they serve "fair rehabilitative discipline").
¶5 We affirm the juvenile court's adjudication and disposition.