IN RE: B.R.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE B.R. No. 2 CA-JV 2015-0175 Filed January 6, 2016 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 103(G). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. JV20140536 The Honorable Catherine M. Woods, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Minor IN RE B.R. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Staring concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 B.R. was adjudicated delinquent in January 2015 after he admitted having committed first-degree criminal trespass. The juvenile court placed B.R. on a six-month term of probation and ordered him to pay restitution. This appeal followed. ¶2 Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has searched the record but has found no arguable question of law. She has requested that we give B.R. or his guardian an opportunity to file a supplemental brief. We deny that request. This court has limited the application of Anders in delinquency appeals to the requirement that we review the record for fundamental error; a minor or guardian is not permitted to file a supplemental brief. In Re Cochise Cty. Juv. Action No. DL88-00037, 164 Ariz. 417, 419-20, 793 P.2d 570, 572-73 (App. 1990). ¶3 Pursuant to Anders and as requested, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error. The record supports the juvenile court’s finding that B.R. knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently admitted having committed first-degree criminal trespass and provided a sufficient factual basis for that admission. See A.R.S. § 13-1504(A)(1). We have found no errors, fundamental or otherwise, in these adjudication proceedings. Nor have we found any error with respect to the court’s disposition, in which it placed B.R. on probation and, after a restitution hearing, ordered him to pay $8,000 in restitution for which he was jointly and severally liable with his codefendants. See generally A.R.S. §§ 8-341, 8-344. ¶4 The adjudication and disposition are affirmed. 2
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.
