In re Anastassia R..

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 ANASTASSIA R. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/01/10 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: JT No. 1 CA-JV 10-0055 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G) Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct.; Rule 28 ARCAP) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JV175673 The Honorable Dawn M. Bergin, Judge AFFIRMED James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Suzanne W. Sanchez, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Richard M. Romley, Maricopa County Attorney By Jeffrey W. Trudgian, Appeals Bureau Chief, Maricopa County Attorney s Office Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix S W A N N, Judge ¶1 Anastassia R. appeals her adjudication of delinquency for a class 1 misdemeanor, Threatening or Intimidating, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1202(A)(1). Appellate counsel for Anastassia has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 788 P.2d 1235 (App. 1989), requesting that this court search the record for fundamental error. Finding no such error, we affirm. Factual and Procedural History ¶2 After Anastassia school confronted elementary school. on the February victim 5, in 2008, the 11-year-old lobby of their Anastassia walked up to the victim and told her that she was going to slit her throat. Anastassia then drew her thumb across her own neck, as if she were slitting her throat. During this confrontation, Anastassia also warned the victim that she was going to come to her house and beat her up. ¶3 Convinced that Anastassia would not act on her threats, the victim went home from school with her twin sister. After arriving home, however, the victim heard a knock on her door. The victim s sister Anastassia s sister there.1 answered the door to find Anastassia s sister asked the victim if she wanted to fight Anastassia, and the victim responded that she did not. 1 When Anastassia s brother relayed the message that Anastassia and her brother were also present. 2 the victim did not want to fight her, Anastassia stated, She wants to fight me. ensued, during I know she does. which the victim s Additional conversation sister called her mother. Soon thereafter, the twins closed the door and went upstairs. But Anastassia and her siblings kept banging on [the] door, kicking it, [and] throwing rocks at it. After Anastassia and her siblings left, the police were called. ¶4 On December 11, 2008, alleging Anastassia delinquent. the State filed a petition On January 6, 2009, an Advisory Hearing was held, whereby the court found Anastassia indigent and appointed her counsel. After the State declined to dismiss the charges, defense counsel requested that Anastassia undergo a mental competency evaluation. ¶5 On participate February in a 9, mental 2009, Anastassia competency was evaluation. ordered Two to doctors evaluated Anastassia, with one indicating that she was competent and the other finding that she was not competent. doctor was appointed to evaluate her competency. A third The third doctor found that she was not competent, but that she could be educated to attain a level of competence. Thereafter, Anastassia was ordered to participate in a restoration program. During the July 15, 2009 Review of Restoration Hearing, Anastassia was again found incompetent and ordered to continue participation in the restoration 3 program. Despite her participation in the program, on September 11, 2009, Anastassia was again determined incompetent and, once again, ordered to continue participation in the restoration program. At the third Review of Restoration Hearing, Anastassia was found competent.2 ¶6 on Adjudication and Disposition Hearings were conducted February juvenile 24, court 2010. found After considering Anastassia the delinquent. evidence, The the court determined that summary probation was appropriate and ordered Anastassia to complete eight hours of community service and to enroll in Students Against Destructive Decisions ( SADD ) Anastassia timely filed a notice of appeal. We have classes. ¶7 jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 8235(A) (2007), and Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(A). Discussion ¶8 We have read and considered counsel s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error. See JV-117258, 163 Ariz. at 488, 788 P.2d at 1239. We find none. ¶9 that The record indicates all the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the laws of this state and the applicable rules of the court. 30. Anastassia was present See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 6, 29, at 2 all critical stages and was Anastassia s counsel was present at each of the Review of Restoration Hearings. 4 represented by counsel during the Advisory Hearing, Competency Hearing, Review of Restoration Hearings, Adjudication Hearing, Disposition Hearing, and on this appeal. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 10, 12(A). ¶10 requested Pursuant a to A.R.S. competency § 8-291.01, evaluation to defense counsel determine whether Anastassia had sufficient ability to consult with her attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. 8-291(2). The initial competency evaluations A.R.S. § indicated that Anastassia did not have a present ability to consult with her counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. But her doctors opined that she could be restored to competency within the statutory time limits; the juvenile court, therefore, was not required to dismiss the charges with prejudice. See In re Charles B., 194 Ariz. 174, 177, ¶¶ 7-8, 978 P.2d 659, 662 (App. 1998). ¶11 The testimony presented at the hearing was sufficient evidence from which the court could find Anastassia delinquent. And upon a finding of delinquency, it was within the juvenile court s authority to place Anastassia on summary probation and order her to complete eight hours of community service and SADD classes. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(a) (Supp. 2009).3 3 We cite the current version of the statute because no revisions material to this decision have since occurred. 5 CONCLUSION ¶12 We have reviewed error and find none. the entire record Accordingly, we affirm. for reversible Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), Anastassia s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Counsel need only inform Anastassia of the status of her appeal and of her future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(A). See also Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(J). /s/ ___________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge /s/ ____________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, 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.