In re Irlanda C.

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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/17/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) IN RE IRLANDA C. ) ) ) ) __________________________________) No. 1 CA-JV 09-0241 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G) Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct.; Rule 28 ARCAP) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County Cause No. S1400JV20090457 The Honorable Maria Elena Cruz, Judge AFFIRMED Jon R. Smith, Yuma County Attorney By Mark Edward Hessinger, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Yuma Kelly A. Smith Attorney for Appellant Yuma D O W N I E, Judge ¶1 Irlanda C. ( Juvenile ) appeals her adjudication and disposition for attempted aggravated assault. Juvenile s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV- 117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 788 P.2d 1235 (App. 1989), advising that a search of reversal. the record Counsel fundamental error. revealed requests that no we arguable search grounds for record for the See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8- 235(A) (2007) and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 ¶2 On October 23, 2009, the juvenile told I.C. that she wanted to fight. and face. in the Later that day, she punched I.C. in the head When I.C. fell to the ground, the juvenile kicked her nose. I.C. s injuries included a broken nose that required surgery, a concussion, scratches, and bruises. ¶3 On October 28, 2009, officer E.Q. went to the juvenile s home and asked her what she knew about a fight on October 23. When the juvenile confirmed she knew what [the officer] was talking about, he issued Miranda warnings that the juvenile said she understood. The juvenile confirmed hitting 1 We view the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court's adjudication. Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-123196, 172 Ariz. 74, 78, 834 P.2d 160, 164 (App. 1992) (citation omitted). 2 I.C. with her fists. She was placed under arrest. At the police station, Officer E.Q. reminded juvenile of her Miranda rights, and she agreed to talk to him. The juvenile s mother waited in the station lobby. ¶4 The juvenile was charged with aggravated assault, a class four felony, and assault, a class three misdemeanor. She admitted one count of attempted aggravated assault, a class five felony, juvenile and was the court dismissed adjudicated the original delinquent, placed counts. on The intensive probation, and ordered to pay $4559.13 in restitution. DISCUSSION ¶5 We have read counsel s brief and reviewed the entire record. find no See JV-117258, 163 Ariz. at 488, 788 P.2d at 1239. fundamental error. All of the proceedings We were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court, and the disposition was within the juvenile court s authority. The juvenile was present at all critical phases of the proceedings and was represented by counsel. 1. ¶6 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Although counsel identified no issues for our review, the juvenile s notice of appeal states that she didn t have enough legal advice. Although a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised in a direct appeal in an adult criminal case, it may be raised in a juvenile appeal. 3 Compare State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, 3, 39 P.3d 525, 527 (2002) with, e.g., Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-511576, 186 Ariz. 604, 606-07, 925 P.2d 745, 747-48 (App. 1996). ¶7 To performance prevail, was is not Sturgis v. Id. juvenile must and deficient prejudiced her. it the the that show that deficient counsel's performance An attorney's performance is deficient if reasonably Goldsmith, effective 796 F.2d under 1103, the 1110 circumstances. (9th Cir. 1986). Prejudice occurs when there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, proceeding would have been different. the result of the JV-511576, 186 Ariz. at 606, 925 P.2d at 747 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)). ¶8 The juvenile has neither developed nor explained her argument about ineffective assistance of counsel. Moreover, nothing in the record reflects that her attorney s performance was not reasonably effective under the circumstances. 2. ¶9 Plea Agreement Juveniles must be afforded adjudication of charges against them. due process in the See In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 30-31 (1967); In re Maricopa County, Juv. Action No. JV508488, 185 Ariz. 295, 299, 915 P.2d 1250, 1254 (App. 1996). [T]o be valid, the record of an admission in the juvenile system must reflect that the juvenile was aware of the right 4 against self-incrimination, the right to confront accusers, and the right to a trial in the form of an adjudication proceeding . . . . In re Timothy M., 197 Ariz. 394, 398, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d 449, 453 (App. 2000). The court must also find that a factual basis for the plea exists and that the admission is voluntary and not the result of threats and promises. Id. A hearing is required, and the court must personally address the juvenile to ensure that the plea agreement and consequent waiver of constitutional rights comport with all due process requirements. ¶10 Id. In the case at bar, the juvenile was present at the adjudication hearing and represented by counsel. Before accepting the plea, the court explained the juvenile s right to maintain [her] innocence and proceed to trial on the original charges, where innocent, to she would remain have silent, the to right to cross-examine witnesses, and to bring in her own witnesses. be presumed the State s The juvenile agreed to give up these rights and admit the amended charge of attempted aggravated assault. After the State presented a factual basis for the charge, the court found that the juvenile had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered the plea and accepted it. ¶11 The question whether admission. juvenile court promises did or not, force however, induced the specifically juvenile s Such an omission does not invalidate a plea as long 5 as the juvenile is advised of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, the right to a jury trial, and the right to confront [her] accusers, and the record shows that the plea was voluntarily made with an understanding of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea. 2 In re Harry B., 193 Ariz. 156, 158, ¶ 6, 971 P.2d 203, 205 (App. 1998). As we stated supra, the court here advised the juvenile of the requisite rights. offer, including Under these It also explained the charges and the State s its facts, recommendation the court for intensive appropriately probation. accepted the juvenile s plea. CONCLUSION ¶12 We affirm disposition. representation nothing more the juvenile s adjudication and resulting Counsel s obligations pertaining to the juvenile s in than this appeal inform the have ended. juvenile of Counsel the status need do of the appeal and her future options, unless counsel s review reveals 2 A defendant cannot voluntarily and intelligently enter into a plea agreement without knowing the amount of restitution. State v. King, 157 Ariz. 508, 510, 759 P.2d 1312, 1314 (1988); Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-110720, 156 Ariz. 430, 432, 752 P.2d 519, 521 (App. 1988). Because the record on appeal was not sufficiently clear on this issue, we ordered supplemental briefing. In response, the parties asked us to stay the proceedings and re-vest jurisdiction in the juvenile court for a factual determination of this issue, which we did. At a subsequent hearing, the juvenile testified that she was fully aware of the restitution amount owed prior to entering her plea. 6 an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 58485, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). See also Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107. The juvenile shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to file a pro per petition for review. /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ DONN KESSLER, Judge /s/ PETER B. SWANN, Judge 7

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.