In re Aaron F.

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 AARON F. 1 CA-JV 09-0185 DIVISION ONE FILED: 02-23-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JV 542815 The Honorable James H. Keppel, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section and Jeffrey W. Trudgian, Appeals Bureau Chief Maricopa County Attorney s Office Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Terry Reid, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 Aaron F. appeals from his change of plea and the juvenile court s disposition order committing him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections ( ADJC ) and ordering him to register as a sex offender. After searching the record and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Aaron s counsel filed a brief in accordance with 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), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. After reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and therefore affirm the juvenile court s disposition. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1 ¶2 In March 2007, Aaron admitted to a charge of public sexual indecency to a minor, a class five felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13-1403 (Supp. 2005). The juvenile court accepted his admission, made him a ward of the court, and placed him under protective custody of a probation officer Department of and Economic in physical custody Security/Child of the Protective Arizona Services ( CPS ), to reside at the Youth Development Institute ( YDI ). The court deferred sex offender registration. Aaron remained in placement at YDI for the next 979 days, living most of this time in a therapeutic group home. 1 [W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the adjudication. In re John M., 201 Ariz. 424, 426, ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 772, 774 (App. 2001). 2 ¶3 On September probable cause that probation and issued apprehension. 2, 2009, Aaron a had the juvenile violated Temporary the Custody court terms Warrant found of his for his In so doing, the court considered a petition to revoke custody filed by a juvenile probation officer that stated Aaron had left his group home, cashed a check, and had given $370 to another group home resident to buy salvia and sell it to children. Salvia is a psychoactive herb which can induce strong dissociative effects. ¶4 terms On September 4, 2009, Aaron admitted to violating the of his probation by leaving the group home without permission. Before accepting his admission, the juvenile court advised of him dispositional his constitutional consequences of his rights and admission; the found possible he had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights; and obtained a factual basis from him supporting his admission. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 28(C). ¶5 At Aaron s disposition hearing, the juvenile court heard from his probation officer, his CPS case manager, his attorney, both his parents, and counsel for the State. The State argued Aaron was an extreme risk to the community, and the State and Aaron s CPS case manager joined the probation officer s recommendation Aaron be committed to the ADJC. juvenile court committed Aaron to 3 the ADJC until his The 18th birthday and ordered Aaron to register as a sex offender. timely appealed. Aaron We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), and 8-235(A) (2007), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103(A). DISCUSSION I. Change of Plea ¶6 Aaron first appeals from the change of plea hearing on September 4, 2009, order filed on (September 11, 2009). The record reflects, however, the juvenile court went through the plea agreement with Aaron in open court and engaged him in an extended colloquy regarding the rights he would be waiving as required by Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 28. See supra ¶ 4. II. Disposition Order ¶7 We review juvenile delinquency disposition orders for an abuse of discretion. In re Miguel R., 204 Ariz. 328, 331, ¶ 3, 63 P.3d 1065, 1068 (App. 2003). discretion, guidelines Court. the for juvenile commitment court is promulgated In exercising its broad required by the to consider Arizona Supreme See A.R.S. § 8-246(C) (2007); Ariz. Code of Jud. Admin. § 6-304(C)(1) ( ACJA ). ¶8 to Although the juvenile court did not explicitly refer the guidelines, it had sufficient 4 evidence before it to commit Aaron to the ADJC. Aaron had been adjudicated for the delinquent act of public sexual indecency to a minor and the probation officer s psychoactive facts, the community, herb State and report for stated intended argued ACJA Aaron Aaron sale was section to attempted children. an extreme 6-304(C)(1)(a) to buy On risk a these to the specifically authorizes the juvenile court to commit those juveniles who are adjudicated for a delinquent act and whom the court believes require placement in a secure care facility for the protection of the community. Thus, the juvenile court acted within its discretion in committing Aaron to the ADJC. ¶9 The juvenile court also acted within its discretion in ordering Aaron to register as a sex offender. See A.R.S. § 13-3821(D) (Supp. 2009).2 ¶10 We have reviewed error and find none. 881. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at Aaron was represented by counsel at all stages of the probation revocation and disposition proceedings, personally present at all critical stages. and he was The court imposed an appropriate disposition for Aaron s adjudication. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e) (Supp. 2009). 2 Although certain statutes cited in this decision were amended after the date of Aaron s probation violation, the revisions are immaterial. Thus, we cite to the current versions of these statutes. 5 CONCLUSION ¶11 We decline to order briefing and affirm the court s disposition and registration orders. ¶12 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), Aaron s counsel s obligations in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Aaron of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(A), (J). /s/ _______________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge /s/ ____________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Judge 6

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.