In re Gabriel 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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/09/10 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) IN RE: GABRIEL P., ) ) ) ) ) ___________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/09/10 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-JV 10-0210 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. JV 551100 The Honorable Peter A. Thompson, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section and Jeffrey W. Trudgian, Appeals Bureau Chief Maricopa County Attorney's Office Westside Juvenile Division Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Suzanne Sanchez, Deputy Public Defender Judy Carol Huddleston Attorneys for Appellant W E I S B E R G, Judge Phoenix Mesa ¶1 Gabriel P. ( the Juvenile ) appeals from the juvenile court's order committing him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections ("ADJC"). His appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 788 P.2d 1235 (App. 1989), stating that she has found no arguable issues for appeal and asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. that follow, we affirm. Revised Statutes For reasons We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona ( A.R.S. ) sections 8-235(A)(2007) and 12- against the 2101(B)(2003). BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION ¶2 The State filed a delinquency petition Juvenile charging him with criminal damage,a class 1 misdemeanor. At the advisory/admissions hearing, the Juvenile admitted that on August 23, 2010, while he was in juvenile court on another matter, he got mad, hit the wall with his elbow, and made a hole in it. The court found that the intelligent and voluntary. Juvenile s admission was knowing, The Juvenile had been in detention for approximately eighty days and the court ordered that he remain there until the disposition hearing. ¶3 At the disposition hearing, the probation recommended that the Juvenile be committed to ADJC. officer She stated that it s been a continual tirade of incident reports [and] I ve 2 come to the conclusion that either he has zero impulse control, or he s voluntarily making these choices to act out [and] I can t even count the number of incident reports. The Juvenile s Guardian Ad Litem recommended psychological or psychiatric services for the Juvenile and questioned whether the community s going to be safe if he s released on some type of restrictions. ¶4 The court noted that the Juvenile had been involved in a continual series of problems that made the court very concerned about releasing him into the community. The court stated that the Juvenile s behavior before and during detention suggested that he was seriously out of control and that the court could not just throw [him] out there and just hope it works for the community. The court determined that it was not in the best interests of the community to release the Juvenile. The court ordered that the Juvenile be committed to ADJC until age eighteen or until sooner released pursuant to the law, but for a minimum of thirty days. The Juvenile timely appealed. ¶5 The record shows that counsel represented the Juvenile at all stages of the proceedings and on this appeal. We have read and considered counsel's brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. at 487- 88, 788 P.2d at 1238-39. We find none. The court conducted the final disposition hearing in compliance with Rules 23 and 30, Arizona Rules of Procedure for 3 the Juvenile Court, and the disposition is within the court s statutory authority. 341 (A)(1)(e)(Supp. 2010). A.R.S. 8- The record shows the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in committing the Juvenile to ADJC. In Re Niky R., 203 Ariz. 387, 390, ¶ 10, 55 P.3d 81, 84 (App. 2002). ¶6 Upon the filing of this decision and pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), the obligations of the Juvenile's counsel in this appeal are at an end. Counsel need do no more than inform the Juvenile 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. CONCLUSION ¶7 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the disposition ordered by the juvenile court. /s/____________________________ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Judge CONCURRING: /s/_______________________________ PHILIP HALL, Presiding 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.