IN RE M.H.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE M.H. No. 2 CA-JV 2016-0101 Filed September 29, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. JV20439101 The Honorable Jane Butler, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Steven R. Sonenberg, Pima County Public Defender By Susan C. L. Kelly, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Minor IN RE M.H. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Staring concurred. H O W A R D, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Sixteen-year-old M.H. appeals from the juvenile court’s May 9, 2016 order placing him on twelve months’ juvenile intensive probation and requiring him to “complete the Sycamore Canyon Academy program.” Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and In re Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486-87, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237-38 (App. 1989), stating she has reviewed the record and that, based on that review, “[t]he only arguable issue which appears to exist in this delinquency appeal” is whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering M.H. into “out-of-home placement at Sycamore Canyon Academy.” She asks this court to review the record for fundamental error. ¶2 We find no reversible error. M.H. was adjudicated delinquent on multiple counts in April and May 2015 and placed on juvenile intensive probation. He was again adjudicated delinquent in early 2016 and was returned to probation. In April, M.H. admitted he had violated the terms of his probation when he “violated GPS monitoring with unauthorized leave,” “violated house arrest,” and “failed to charge his GPS unit” as required. The record supports the juvenile court’s findings that M.H.’s admission was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and that he provided an adequate factual basis to support that admission. ¶3 The record also establishes the court appropriately exercised its discretion in placing M.H. on probation and ordering him to attend Sycamore Canyon Academy. See A.R.S. §§ 8341(A)(1)(d), (B), 8-341.01; see also In re Niky R., 203 Ariz. 387, ¶ 21, 55 P.3d 81, 86 (App. 2002) (when not explicitly stated, we presume 2 IN RE M.H. Decision of the Court juvenile court implicitly made findings necessary to justify disposition order); In re John G., 191 Ariz. 205, ¶ 8, 953 P.2d 1258, 1260 (App. 1998) (“We will not disturb a juvenile court’s disposition order absent an abuse of discretion.”). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have found no fundamental or reversible error. Accordingly, the juvenile court’s order finding M.H. had violated his probation and placing him on a term of probation, as well as in Sycamore Canyon Academy, is affirmed. 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.
