Opinion
No. 2 CA-JV 2017-0153
03-21-2018
IN RE N.R.
COUNSEL Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Bunkye Chi, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for State Sherick and Bleier PLLC, Tucson By Adam N. Bleier 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pima County
No. JV20170080
The Honorable D. Douglas Metcalf, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney
By Bunkye Chi, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson
Counsel for State
Sherick and Bleier PLLC, Tucson
By Adam N. Bleier
Counsel for Minor
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred.
EPPICH, Judge:
¶1 N.R. appeals from the juvenile court's order adjudicating him delinquent for burglary and marijuana possession and placing him on juvenile intensive probation. He argues there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding of delinquency on the burglary charge, contending he was merely present at the scene of the crime. We affirm.
¶2 We view the evidence and resolve all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court's ruling. In re Jessi W., 214 Ariz. 334, ¶ 11 (App. 2007). In November 2016, N.R. was in a recreational vehicle (RV) with others smoking marijuana when a discussion about burglarizing a particular house began. After taking one person home, the others went to the house and, after burglarizing it, they took the stolen items back to the RV. Police officers later found N.R. inside the RV with some of the items. N.R. had been identified as having been at the house and having carried property to the truck.
¶3 On appeal, N.R. contends there was insufficient evidence that he committed burglary, and he maintains he was instead merely present during the crime. He argues "there is no proof that [he] participated in or had any intent to participate in the felonious acts which occurred in the residence." But this ignores the evidence, outlined above, that N.R. was present during and took part in the discussions before the crime; that he did not leave as did another, but continued to the residence; that he had gone inside the residence; and, although the evidence is disputed, that he had removed property from the residence. Thus, his argument is merely a request for this court to reweigh the evidence presented to the juvenile court. But "[t]he resolution of such conflicts in the evidence is uniquely the province of the juvenile court as the trier of fact." Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, ¶ 12 (App. 2002). We will not reweigh the evidence on appeal. Id.
¶4 Therefore, we affirm the juvenile court's adjudication and disposition.