IN RE ALEXIS E.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED BY CLERK 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 NOV 21 2011 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN RE ALEXIS E. 2 CA-JV 2011-0084 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 28, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PINAL COUNTY Cause No. S1100JV200700359 Honorable Craig A. Raymond, Judge Pro Tempore APPEAL DISMISSED Camille Hernandez James P. Walsh, Pinal County Attorney By Mercedes Goates H O W A R D, Chief Judge. Florence Attorney for Appellant Florence Attorneys for Appellee ¶1 Appellant Alexis E. was adjudicated delinquent after he admitted he had engaged in disorderly conduct, as alleged in a delinquency petition filed in July 2010. The juvenile court placed Alexis on intensive probation for a one-year period. After he violated the terms of that probation by leaving his home without the permission of his probation officer and testing positive for alcohol use, the court ordered Alexis committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) until his eighteenth birthday. ¶2 On appeal Alexis alleges the juvenile court violated his due process rights by failing to consider and give due weight to mitigating evidence which suggested that commitment to [ADJC] was excessive. He argues the court should have ascertain[ed] the position of the Guardian ad Litem, whom he maintains would have recommended that reinstatement to probation was appropriate. And he asserts the court failed to give due consideration to the fact that he had received a high score on the General Equivalency Diploma exam. ¶3 The state, however, contends this appeal is moot because Alexis s eighteenth birthday has passed, and he therefore has completed the term of commitment imposed. Alexis has declined to address the state s claim, instead filing only a notice in lieu of a reply and stating, without citation, that the state s brief is without merit. A failure to reply to arguments raised in an answering brief may justify a summary disposition of an appeal, Ariz. Dep t of Pub. Safety v. Indus. Comm n, 170 Ariz. 275, 2 277, 823 P.2d 1283, 1285 (App. 1991), and does so here. The appeal therefore is dismissed. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge 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.
