In re Monique H.

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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE IN RE MONIQUE H. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/05/10 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: JT 1 CA-JV 10-0005 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JV552305 The Honorable Linda A. Akers, Judge AFFIRMED Richard M. Romley, Maricopa County Attorney by Jeffrey W. Trudgian, Appeals Bureau Chief/ Deputy County Attorney and Linda Van Brakel, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Terry J. Reid, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 Monique H. ( Juvenile ) appeals her adjudication and disposition. Her lawyer has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), and Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 485-87, 788 P.2d 1235, 1236-38 (App. 1989), advising this court that after a search of the entire record on appeal, she finds no arguable ground for reversal. Counsel requests that we search the record for fundamental error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). ¶2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8-235 (2007), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103. FACTS 1 ¶3 The State filed a delinquency petition on October 10, 2009, charging Juvenile with criminal damage and assault, both class two misdemeanors, and threatening or intimidating by a gang member, a class six felony. Juvenile pled guilty to misdemeanor threatening or intimidating by a gang member, and the State dismissed the remaining charges. She was adjudicated delinquent and the matter was set for disposition on December 4, 2009. ¶4 mother, While and the awaiting State disposition, filed a second Juvenile kicked delinquency charging her with assault, a class three misdemeanor. 1 her petition She pled We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the adjudication. See In re John M., 201 Ariz. 424, 426, ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 772, 774 (App. 2001). 2 guilty to the assault charge, the court adjudicated her delinquent, and the matter was also set for disposition. The court placed Juvenile on standard probation on January 5, 2010, and, as a special condition, ordered that she be detained for up to 120 days, but released to a residential treatment program as soon as an appropriate facility was located. Juvenile was transferred to Mingus Mountain Academy on January 12, 2010. DISCUSSION ¶5 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. 163 Ariz. at 488, 788 P.2d at 1239. See JV-117258, We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. So far as the record reveals, Juvenile was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, statutory limits. ¶6 and the disposition imposed was within the See A.R.S. § 8-341 (Supp. 2009). The brief indicated that the Juvenile believes that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering that she participate in residential treatment rather than treatment and counseling while living at home. Because there was a question about whether the record supported the disposition, we ordered additional briefing pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). 3 ¶7 The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine an appropriate disposition, In re Miguel R., 204 Ariz. 328, 331, ¶ 3, 63 P.3d 1065, 1068 (App. 2003), and is authorized to order residential treatment 341.01 (2007). unless in appropriate by psychological, the court, psychiatric or be Additionally, evidence residential the that treatment supported medical residential treatment services. convincing see A.R.S. by a alternatives considered, 8- evaluation written recommending A.R.S. § 8-341.01(A). court must both: services find 1. to The by clear but that to residential residential requires the child s address treatment treatment and child behavioral, psychological, social or mental health needs. Available § Residential treatment services, however, must, waived ¶8 cases, services services least restrictive alternative. court were the A.R.S. § 8-341.01(B). ¶9 are 2. Here, the juvenile information at disposition. had all the requisite The court had a psychiatric report from October 2009; a subsequent psychological evaluation which provided a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol abuse; the staffing oral recommendation that Juvenile be admitted to a residential treatment program; and her mother s support for residential treatment because without it she believed that her daughter would fail. 4 ¶10 Although the court did not expressly make the requisite findings at disposition, we presume that the court implicitly made the treatment services. findings prior to ordering residential See In re Niky R., 203 Ariz. 387, 392, ¶ 21, 55 P.3d 81, 86 (App. 2002) (stating that we presume that the juvenile court makes disposition). The every record, finding moreover, necessary to demonstrates support that the juvenile court had sufficient facts to make the finding by clear and convincing evidence that Juvenile needed residential treatment to address her behavioral, psychological, social or mental health considered; needs; and that that available residential restrictive alternative. alternatives treatment was the were least In fact, on March 2, 2010, the court found by clear and convincing evidence[,] that placement at a residential treatment facility continues to be necessary to meet [Juvenile s] behavioral and mental health needs and that . . . placement at such a facility is the least restrictive available alternative. (Emphasis added.) Consequently, based on the record, the court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered that she participate in a residential treatment program. See JV-117258, 163 Ariz. at 485, 788 P.2d at 1236. ¶11 Having addressed the Juvenile s reversible error and affirm. 5 issue, we find no CONCLUSION ¶12 After obligations the filing pertaining appeal have ended. to of this Juvenile s decision, representation counsel s in this Counsel need do no more than inform her of the status of the appeal and her future options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). ¶13 Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication disposition. and /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ______________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge /s/ ______________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge 6

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.