In re Joseph B

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 JOSEPH B. DIVISION ONE FILED: 05/29/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-JV 11-0236 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County Cause No. P1300JV201100104 The Honorable Ethan A. Wolfinger, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Sheila Polk, Yavapai County Attorney by Keith J. Evans, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Jonna C. Hoffman, Attorney at Law by Jonna C. Hoffman Attorney for Appellant Prescott Clarkdale P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 Joseph B. ( Joseph ) appeals disposition for possession of marijuana. his adjudication and This appeal was filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 485-88, 788 P.2d 1235, 1236-39 (App. 1989). Joseph s attorney advises this court that after a search of the entire record on appeal, she finds no arguable ground for reversal. Counsel now requests that we search the record for fundamental error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm the juvenile court s order. FACTS 1 ¶2 A U.S. Forest Service officer stopped a car carrying five teenagers, including Joseph, in Yavapai County on April 22, 2011. The officer questioned the driver, searched the car, and located alcohol, a marijuana bud, and a small, one hit-style pipe. The pipe and marijuana were found under the seat where seventeen-year-old Joseph had been sitting. ¶3 The State subsequently filed a petition in juvenile court alleging that Joseph had illegally possessed marijuana and drug paraphernalia, ( A.R.S. ) 2012). sections Joseph in violation 28-3320, denied the of 13-3401, Arizona -3405, allegations, Revised and and Statutes -3415 a (West contested adjudication was set. 1 We review the facts 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) (citation omitted). 2 ¶4 At the September 2011 hearing, in addition to the testimony of the teen driver and the officer, the court heard from Joseph. He testified that he did not own the marijuana that he had been smoking in the car, and had never seen the pipe that was found adjudicated under Joseph his guilty seat. of The possession court of subsequently marijuana, but acquitted him of possession of drug paraphernalia. ¶5 At the disposition hearing, the court designated the marijuana possession offense as a class 1 misdemeanor and placed Joseph on standard probation until his eighteenth birthday. 2 ¶6 We have jurisdiction over Joseph s appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-235 (West 2012) and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103. DISCUSSION ¶7 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. 163 Ariz. at 488, 788 P.2d at 1239. See JV-117258, Finding none, we affirm. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. So far as the record reveals, Joseph was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, within the statutory limits. 2 and the disposition imposed was See A.R.S. § 8-341(B) (West 2012). Joseph turned eighteen during the pendency of this appeal. 3 CONCLUSION ¶8 We affirm the adjudication and disposition. After this decision is filed, counsel must only inform Joseph of the status of the appeal and his future options. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Judge /s/ ________________________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, 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.