Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 20-0280
02-02-2021
IN RE NOVALI G.
COUNSEL Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney at Law, Phoenix By Robert D. Rosanelli Counsel for Appellant
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Yavapai County
No. P1300JV202000187
The Honorable Anna C. Young, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney at Law, Phoenix
By Robert D. Rosanelli
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge David B. Gass and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
PERKINS, Judge:
¶1 Novali G., a juvenile, timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484 (App. 1989), from a disposition placing her on intensive probation.
¶2 Novali's counsel searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark, 96 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999); JV-117258, 163 Ariz. at 485-88. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶3 In July 2020, the State filed a delinquency petition, alleging that Novali committed: Riot, a class five felony, and Criminal Damage, a class six felony. Novali admitted committing Riot and was adjudicated delinquent. But the juvenile court dismissed the Criminal Damage charge with prejudice.
¶4 The court placed Novali on intensive probation until her eighteenth birthday or until the juvenile probation officer, at her discretion, released Novali to an appropriate placement. The court also ordered Novali to complete twenty-four hours of community service and/or a life skills enrichment academic program. And Novali must complete a residential treatment program. In October 2020, the court ordered Novali to pay $575 in restitution to the victim. Novali timely appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 8-235(A).
DISCUSSION
¶5 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Novali. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998). We have searched the entire record for reversible error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. The record reflects Novali knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently admitted
the charge against her. Her admission supported the juvenile court's adjudication. All the proceedings were conducted according to the Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. And counsel represented Novali through the entirety of the proceedings. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 12(B) (a telephonic appearance is considered a personal appearance). She was also given the opportunity to speak at her disposition hearing. Sufficient evidence supports the adjudication and the court imposed a disposition within its discretion. A.R.S. § 8-341; see also In re Miguel R., 204 Ariz. 328, 332, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).
CONCLUSION
¶6 We have reviewed the entire record for arguable issues of law and find none. See JV-117258, 163 Ariz. at 488. Accordingly, we affirm the delinquency finding and disposition.
¶7 Upon filing of this decision, counsel need do no more than inform Novali of the status of her appeal and of her future options, unless, upon review, counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Novali has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with a pro per petition for review. Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(A).