Opinion
No. 2 CA-JV 2014-0023
07-11-2014
IN RE P.B.-L.
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Susan C.L. Kelly, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. Civ. App. P. 28(c); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 103(G).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. JV20130291
The Honorable Michael Butler, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender
By Susan C.L. Kelly, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Minor
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Presiding Judge Miller concurred. ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 The juvenile, seventeen-year-old P., appeals from the juvenile court's January 9, 2014, order committing him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) until his eighteenth birthday. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486-87, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237-38 (App. 1989), stating she has reviewed the record and that, based on that review, "[t]he only arguable issue which appears to exist in this delinquency appeal" is whether "the court abused its discretion in committing P., a first-time offender, to [ADJC]." She asks this court to review the record for fundamental error.
¶2 We find no reversible error. The record supports the juvenile court's findings that P.'s admission to the alleged offense of possession of marijuana for sale was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and that he provided an adequate factual basis to support that admission. See A.R.S. § 13-3405(A)(2); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 32(D)(2).
¶3 The record also establishes the court appropriately exercised its discretion in committing the juvenile to ADJC. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e); In re John G., 191 Ariz. 205, ¶ 8, 953 P.2d 1258, 1260 (App. 1998) ("We will not disturb a juvenile court's disposition order absent an abuse of discretion."). The court considered the nature of the offense, the lack of other appropriate less restrictive placement alternatives, and the rehabilitation opportunities available in ADJC, before concluding commitment was warranted. See Ariz. Code of Jud. Admin. § 6-304(C)(l).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have found no fundamental or reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, the juvenile court's order adjudicating P. delinquent and committing him to ADJC is affirmed.
We note that the juvenile's eighteenth birthday has passed, arguably mooting any issue as to the disposition in this matter. But because we affirm the juvenile court's delinquency adjudication in the course of our review pursuant to Anders and because unforeseen consequences of the disposition could arise, we issue our decision in this matter despite P. having attained adulthood.