IN RE MARIO G.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE IN RE MARIO G. No. 1 CA-JV 22-0166 FILED 12-01-2022 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JV207159 The Honorable Melody Harmon, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL The Law Offices of Kevin Breger, Scottsdale By Kevin Breger Counsel for Appellant Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Krista Wood Counsel for Appellee IN RE MARIO G. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Peter B. Swann1 joined. P A T O N, Judge: ¶1 Mario G. appeals the superior court’s order committing him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (“ADJC”). After reviewing the entire record, Mario’s counsel found no non-frivolous issues and requested we review the record for fundamental error pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484 (App. 1989) (applying Anders procedure to juvenile delinquency proceedings). Finding no error, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Mario was adjudicated delinquent after admitting to resisting arrest, reckless driving, and assault pursuant to a plea agreement. The superior court deferred disposition at Mario’s request pending possible approval of Mario’s placement in a residential treatment facility. After the other facilities declined to accept Mario, the superior court committed him to ADJC for a minimum of thirty days. DISCUSSION ¶3 The record shows that the superior court appropriately exercised its discretion in ordering Mario committed to ADJC. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e) (providing for commitment to ADJC); In re John G., 191 Ariz. 205, 207 ¶ 8 (App. 1998) (noting abuse of discretion standard for Judge Peter B. Swann was a sitting member of this court when the matter was assigned to this panel of the court. He retired effective November 28, 2022. In accordance with the authority granted by Article 6, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution and pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-145, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court has designated Judge Swann as a judge pro tempore in the Court of Appeals for the purpose of participating in the resolution of cases assigned to this panel during his term in office. 1 2 IN RE MARIO G. Decision of the Court review of disposition orders). And we have found no fundamental error in our search of the record. CONCLUSION ¶4 We affirm. The filing of this decision ends Mario’s defense counsel’s obligation to represent Mario in this appeal. Counsel need only inform Mario of the outcome and his future options, unless counsel finds an issue appropriate for which to petition the Arizona Supreme Court for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 609. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: JT 3
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.
