In re Jaciel 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 JACIEL A. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-JV 12-0010 DIVISION ONE FILED: 05/29/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz.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. JV177049 The Honorable Jay Ryan Adleman, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Christina Phillis, Maricopa County Public Advocate by Suzanne Sanchez, Deputy Public Advocate Attorneys for Appellant William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney by Diane Meloche, Appeals Bureau Chief/ Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee State of Arizona Mesa Phoenix P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 Jaciel A. appeals his adjudication and disposition. ¶2 His experienced counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 485-87, 788 P.2d 1235, 1236-38 (App. 1989), advising this court that, after a search of the entire record on appeal, she finds no arguable ground for reversal. Counsel requested that we allow her client time to file a supplemental brief, but he did not take advantage of the opportunity. 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). ¶3 We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8-235 (West 2012), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103. 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). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶4 Jaciel molestation contrary. to on was May adjudicated 25, 2010, delinquent despite his for protests child to the He was placed on probation in June 2010 and ordered complete sex-offender treatment. 2 The court, however, reserved whether he would have to register as a sex offender for one year. ¶5 He was unsuccessfully discharged from the sex-offender treatment. conditions He later admitted that he violated the terms and of probation. As a result, he was sent to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections until his eighteenth birthday. Again, the court deferred the determination of registration as a sex offender. ¶6 The court held the a hearing juvenile on had January to 5, register 2012, as a to determine whether sex offender. After considering the evidence, the court ordered the youngster to register as a sex offender. DISCUSSION ¶7 Jaciel argues that the court abused its discretion when he was ordered to register. He, however, was subject to the was requirement at the time he adjudicated delinquent pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3821(A)(7) and (D) (West 2012). 1 Despite his continued assertion that he did not commit the offense, the registration order was within the discretion of the court based solely on the adjudicated offense. Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion. 1 Unless revisions material to this decision have been made, we cite the current Westlaw version of the applicable statute. We also note that the registration requirement shall terminate when the person reaches twenty-five years of age. A.R.S. § 133821(F). 3 CONCLUSION ¶8 We have read and considered the opening brief, and have searched the entire record for reversible error. 117258, 163 Ariz. at 487-88, 788 P.2d at 1238-39. See JV- We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. So far as the record reveals, Jaciel was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the registration order was an appropriate consequence for the adjudicated offense. ¶9 After this decision has obligations in this appeal have ended. been filed, counsel s Counsel need only inform her client 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). ¶10 Accordingly, we affirm the registration order. /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.