In re Victor A.

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 VICTOR A. 1 CA-JV 10-0060 DIVISION ONE FILED: 06-15-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz.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. JV551573 The Honorable Brian K. Ishikawa, Judge AFFIRMED Richard M. Romley, Acting Maricopa County Attorney By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section And Jeffrey W. Trudgian, Appeals Bureau Chief Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Suzanne W. Sanchez, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Mesa N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 Victor A. appeals from the juvenile court s disposition order committing him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections ( ADJC ). After searching the record and finding Victor s no arguable counsel question filed a of brief law in that was not accordance with frivolous, 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. JV117258, 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 disposition order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 On January 25, 2010, Victor admitted to a charge of second degree burglary, a class three felony. his admission, constitutional consequences the rights of his juvenile and court the admission; Before accepting advised possible found he him of his dispositional 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). ¶3 At Victor s disposition hearing on March 11, 2010, the juvenile court heard from his probation officer, his attorney, his grandmother, and counsel for the State. The juvenile court committed Victor to the ADJC until his 18th birthday or until 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 released sooner pursuant to law, and approximately $1,330 in restitution. 2 ordered him to pay Victor timely appealed. DISCUSSION ¶4 We review juvenile delinquency disposition orders for 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 In exercising its broad is promulgated required by the to consider Arizona Supreme See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ( A.R.S. ) § 8-246(C) (2007); Ariz. Code of Jud. Admin. § 6-304(C)(1) ( ACJA ). ¶5 Here, guidelines found the before (and the court properly record the ACJA Victor committing considered the The court supports) to Victor ADJC. had been adjudicated delinquent on several serious counts involving victims, had failed to pay restitution, and had not done well on standard probation for a variety of reasons. to the ADJC was the least The court found commitment restrictive and most effective alternative because further efforts at rehabilitation need to take place in a secure facility for the protection of the public. ¶6 We have reviewed error and find none. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 2 Over Victor s objection, the court also ordered restitution for a second victim to remain open until April 11, 2010. 3 881. Victor was represented by counsel at all stages of the probation revocation and disposition proceedings, personally present at all critical stages. and was The court imposed an appropriate disposition for Victor s adjudication. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e) (Supp. 2009). CONCLUSION ¶7 We decline to order briefing and affirm the court s disposition order. ¶8 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), Victor s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Victor unless of the status counsel s of review Counsel need do no more than inform the appeal reveals an and his issue future options, 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 4

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.