Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 13-0249
01-30-2014
IN RE KEYANTE F.
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Terry J. Reid Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JV186933
The Honorable Kirby Kongable, Commissioner
The Honorable William R. Wingard, Commissioner
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Terry J. Reid
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. WINTHROP, Judge:
¶1 Keyante F. ("Juvenile") appeals from the juvenile court's delinquency adjudication and subsequent disposition placing him on probation. Juvenile's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969); and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237 (App. 1989), stating that she has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable issue of law. Counsel requests that we search the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews the entire record for reversible error).
¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 8-235(A) (West 2014) and Rule 103(A) of the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. For the following reasons, we affirm.
We cite the current version of the relevant statutes because no revisions material to this decision have since occurred.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court's orders and resolve all reasonable inferences against Juvenile. See In re John M., 201 Ariz. 424, 426, ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 772, 774 (App. 2001); State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994).
--------
¶3 On February 5, 2013, Juvenile entered a public library elevator, pushed a female passenger who was under the age of fifteen against an elevator wall, reached inside her shirt and bra, and forcibly grabbed her breast. On February 26, 2013, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office filed a delinquency petition, charging that Juvenile had committed sexual abuse, a class three felony. See A.R.S. § 13-1404.
¶4 Juvenile entered a written plea agreement, and at the April 30, 2013 pre-adjudication conference, he admitted committing assault, a class three misdemeanor. See A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(3).
¶5 Before accepting Juvenile's admission, the juvenile court confirmed that Juvenile had read and discussed the plea agreement with his attorney before signing it, understood the agreement and agreed with its terms, and had not consumed any drugs, alcohol, or medications in the previous twenty-four hours. Juvenile also confirmed that all agreements were in writing and the contemplated admission was not the result of force, threats, or promises not otherwise expressed in the plea agreement.
¶6 The juvenile court advised Juvenile of the nature of the offense to which he was pleading delinquent, that both standard and sex offender terms would be imposed if the court granted probation, that Juvenile would be required to participate in a psychosexual evaluation or sexual risk assessment before disposition, and that Juvenile could be required to pay restitution in an amount not to be more than $20,000. The court also advised Juvenile of his constitutional rights. Juvenile confirmed that he understood his rights and that he was giving them up by pleading delinquent.
¶7 The court also advised Juvenile of the available dispositional alternatives, including in part that Juvenile could be placed on standard or intensive probation, placed in detention for up to one year as a term of probation, required to wear a juvenile electronic tracking system ("JETS") bracelet and do community service, ordered to undergo counseling or treatment, or sent to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections until his eighteenth birthday. Juvenile confirmed he understood the range of consequences he faced by admitting to the offense.
¶8 Juvenile then admitted he had intentionally, with sexual intent, slid his hand over the victim's breast with the intent to provoke the victim. After finding Juvenile's admission was knowing, intelligent, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis, the court accepted the admission and adjudicated Juvenile delinquent. The court also ordered that Juvenile pay restitution up to $20,000, complete a sexual risk assessment, and submit to physical, psychiatric, and psychological examinations as directed by his probation officer.
¶9 At the August 27, 2013 disposition hearing, the court stated that it had reviewed the disposition report, Juvenile's social and legal files, and Juvenile's psychosexual evaluation. The court placed Juvenile on standard probation in the physical custody of his mother, with both standard and sex offender terms. As special conditions of probation, the court imposed thirty days' deferred detention in a juvenile detention facility and four weeks' deferred participation in JETS. The court also ordered Juvenile to participate in counseling and treatment as directed, and assessed a monthly probation fee of $50.00. Additionally, the court ordered that the privileged communication protections of A.R.S. § 13-4066 would apply to Juvenile as it related to his counseling and treatment.
ANALYSIS
¶10 We have searched the entire record for reversible error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881; JV-117258, 163 Ariz. at 487, 788 P.2d at 1238. The record confirms that Juvenile read and signed the plea agreement, and he and his mother read and signed the conditions of probation. As the juvenile court found, Juvenile's admissions were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, and supported by a factual basis. Juvenile was present and represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings, including the pre-adjudication and disposition hearings, and was offered the opportunity to speak at the disposition hearing. The juvenile court proceedings were conducted in full compliance with Juvenile's constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. The disposition was within the juvenile court's authority under A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1) and Rule 30.
¶11 After filing of this decision, counsel's obligations pertaining to Juvenile's representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Juvenile of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Juvenile has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per petition for review. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(A).
CONCLUSION
¶12 Juvenile's delinquency adjudication and placement on probation are affirmed.