In re Christopher P.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE IN RE: CHRISTOPHER P. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 01/26/2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH No. 1 CA-JV 09-0164 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JV175536 The Honorable Dawn M. Bergin, Judge AFFIRMED Andrew P. Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney By Jeff W. Trudgian, Appeals Bureau Chief/ Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James H. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Eleanor S. Terpstra, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix J O H N S E N, Judge ¶1 Christopher P. appeals his adjudication of delinquency on two counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor under 15, both Class 3 felonies, and subsequent disposition. This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Christopher s counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999); In re JV117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 485-88, 788 P.2d 1235, 1236-39 (App. 1989). Counsel now asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the juvenile court s orders. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 and Christopher P. lived with his stepfather and stepmother six other children; the children. 1 Christopher next child, oldest is whom we the oldest will refer Victim, is his stepmother s oldest biological child. four years younger than Christopher. of to the as She is The family lived in a five-bedroom house, and Christopher and Victim each had their own rooms. Christopher s room was downstairs, and the rest of the family slept upstairs. ¶3 In October 2008, Victim disclosed that Christopher was doing things to her that she didn t like. 1 On appeal from an evidence in the light judgment and resolve juvenile. In re Jessi 1217, 1219 (App. 2007). She first talked to adjudication of delinquency, we view the most favorable to upholding the court s all reasonable inferences against the W., 214 Ariz. 334, 336, ¶ 11, 152 P.3d 2 her friends, then her teacher. The teacher called the police and Child Protective Services, which took Victim to ChildHelp, where she was interviewed by Detective John Bell. that in the middle of the night, while she Victim stated was sleeping, Christopher came into her room and asked her to suck his dick. She stated that it happened more than once, and it happened in his room as well. Christopher was clothed when he said this, but once she could see half of his boxers. ¶4 Victim was afraid of Christopher when this happened because he would grab her arm and pull her next to him. The one time that it happened in Christopher s room, Victim stated that Christopher got mad and hit his . . . bed when she said no. Victim s younger sister, S., testified that one time when she was sleeping in Victim s bed, Christopher came in while Victim was sleeping, lay on top of her, and wiggled. Victim did not testify about this incident. ¶5 During his interview with Detective Dan Dougherty, Christopher repeatedly said that when he used the phrase with Victim, he did not mean it. After being interviewed for about 90 minutes, he said that the last time he told Victim, suck my dick, he meant it. The police interview was played at the adjudication hearing. During the hearing, Christopher testified that he never actually wanted Victim to do what he was asking, 3 but that he wanted to discover if Victim was having sex with people at school, substantial so testimony he was that testing Victim her. often There failed to was also tell the truth. ¶6 The court adjudicated Christopher delinquent on both counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor. was placed conditions on standard probation and required to with participate sex in Christopher offender the YDI Program. Christopher Chaperone He also was given 60 days deferred detention. ¶7 addendum timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003) and 8-235(A) (2007). DISCUSSION ¶8 Substantial adjudication. evidence supported the juvenile The proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. the court did Christopher s court s not hold statements a to voluntariness the police, hearing Although regarding Christopher did not object to Dougherty s testimony and the circumstances do not suggest that his statements might have been involuntary. outset of the interview, Christopher 4 was given the At the juvenile version of his Miranda 2 rights and consented to being interviewed without a lawyer or a parent present. Christopher was present and at adequately proceedings, represented and the by counsel disposition was all stages within of the the court s discretion. CONCLUSION ¶9 We searched the have read entire and record considered for fundamental 117258, 163 Ariz. at 488, 788 P.2d at 1239. ¶10 counsel s brief and See JV- error. We find none. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel s obligations pertaining to Christopher s representation in this appeal have ended. Christopher of Defense counsel need do no more than inform the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 107(A). /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge 2 /s/ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.