In re Miguel M.

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 MIGUEL M. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-JV 10-0080 DIVISION ONE FILED: 05-27-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz.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. JV552148 The Honorable James H. Keppel, Judge AFFIRMED Richard M. Romley, Acting Maricopa County Attorney By Jeffrey W. Trudgian, Deputy County Attorney Appeals Bureau Chief Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Suzanne Sanchez, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant B A R K E R, Judge Phoenix Mesa ¶1 Miguel M. appeals from the adjudication order finding him to be delinquent and the disposition order committing him to the Arizona ordering Department him facility. to serve of a Juvenile minimum Corrections of six ( ADJC ) months in a and locked Miguel s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237 (App. 1989), finding no arguable grounds for appeal after searching the record. This court s obligation Anders is to search the record for fundamental error. at 744. under 386 U.S. Having done so, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History ¶2 In December of 2009, Miguel got into an argument with his stepfather at a gas station and punched his stepfather in the face causing a bruise. On December 11, 2009, Miguel entered into a plea agreement that was accepted by the juvenile court in which he admitted to the charge of domestic violence assault with the intent considering less to cause injury. restrictive On April alternatives, the 9, 2010, after juvenile court committed Miguel to ADJC and ordered him to serve a minimum of six months. The court considered Miguel s pattern of criminal delinquency and the lack of success in monitoring him in the community on intensive probation. 2 ¶3 This timely appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003) and 8235(A) (2007), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103(A). Discussion ¶4 We have read and considered the entire record and have found no fundamental error. by counsel knowingly, at all Miguel was present and represented proceedings. voluntarily, and The record intelligently indicates waived his Miguel rights pursuant to Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 28(C)(5) when agreement. he entered an admission pursuant to the plea Miguel was advised in open court of the nature of the charges and the nature of the possible disposition. Miguel was under eighteen years of age at the time of the final order and was within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The juvenile court found a factual basis for the plea and accepted the plea. ¶5 The constitutional Miguel of his juvenile rights right court in to open informed court, plead not but Miguel declined guilty 1. of to his inform Failure to specifically inform a defendant of all rights being waived at 1 Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.2(d). 3 the time of the plea will not make the plea involuntary or unknowing where the defendant demonstrates rights in the expanded record. awareness of his See State v. McVay, 131 Ariz. 369, 372, 641 P.2d 857, 860 (1982). Awareness of the right to plead not guilty is evidenced by an earlier plea of not guilty. State v. Wilson, 131 Ariz. 96, 98, 638 P.2d 1342, 1344 (1981); see also State v. Lopez, 27 Ariz. App. 626, 629, 557 P.2d 558, 561 (1976) (holding that when the appellant initially entered a plea of not guilty and subsequently changed the plea at the plea bargaining proceeding, the record has conclusively demonstrated that a defendant guilty). had knowledge of the right to plead not Counsel for Miguel entered a denial of guilt, before the court and in Miguel s presence, to the charges of domestic violence assault with conduct. Miguel bargaining proceeding violence assault intent to subsequently with cause altered admitting the injury intent to to the his and plea charge cause disorderly at of injury. a plea domestic Although Miguel was not explicitly advised of his right to plead not guilty in open court, the record demonstrates that he had knowledge of the right to plead not guilty based on his initial denial of guilt and his change of plea admitting to one of the charges. ¶6 Furthermore, Miguel is not a first time offender and has pled delinquent to prior charges of aggravated assault and 4 the felony of endangerment, while having threatening and intimidation dismissed. Miguel has previously aggravated assault pled and not one a third charge for The record shows that guilty to charge two of charges of threatening or intimidation, followed by a change of plea to guilt for two of the charges. Therefore, Miguel s history before the court demonstrates sufficient sophistication with court pleadings to determine comprehension of the right to plead guilty or not guilty. ¶7 It determine is the adjudication within the disposition of delinquency juvenile of a and, court s juvenile absent discretion to following an clear discretion, we will not disturb that disposition. abuse of In re Sean M., 189 Ariz. 323, 324, 942 P.2d 482, 483 (App. 1997). Counsel advises that Miguel requests we determine whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing him to ADJC. Because of Miguel s criminal delinquency history and the lack of success in monitoring him in the community on intensive probation, the court did not abuse its discretion. See In re Niky R., 203 Ariz. 387, 391, ¶¶ 16-19, 55 P.3d 81, 85 (App. 2002) (holding that commitment to ADJC is not an abuse of court s discretion when required juvenile for the accountable protection for of unlawful 5 the community, conduct, to and hold upon consideration of less restrictive means in light of individual circumstances). Conclusion ¶8 The disposition by the juvenile court is affirmed. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), the obligations of Miguel s counsel in this appeal have ended subject to the following. Counsel need do no more than inform Miguel of the status of the appeal and of his future options, appropriate for unless counsel s submission petition for review. to the review Arizona reveals Supreme an issue Court See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(A), (J). /s/ _______________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge 6 by

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.