In re Ronnie G.

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 RONNIE G. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/01/10 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: JT 1 CA-JV 10-0096 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County Cause No. S1400JV20080609 The Honorable John Neff Nelson, Judge DISPOSITION AFFIRMED Jon R. Smith, Yuma County Attorney By Mark Hessinger, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Yuma Michael A. Breeze, Yuma County Public Defender By John A. Cicala, Deputy Juvenile Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Yuma J O H N S E N, Judge ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), following Ronnie G. s commitment to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections ( ADJC ). Ronnie s counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999); Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 485-88, 788 P.2d 1235, 1236-39 (App. 1989). court to reviewing search the the record for entire record, we Counsel asks this fundamental affirm After juvenile the error. court s order of commitment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1 ¶2 With her daughters in her car, R. followed Ronnie as he drove to his house one night in March 2010. By her account, R. thought Ronnie earlier had thrown a brick at her parked car, and she wanted to tell Ronnie to leave her and her daughters alone. angry When Ronnie exited his vehicle, he appeared to be in an rage and was holding a 1 BB gun that was nearly In reviewing an order of the superior court in a juvenile proceeding, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the order. In re John M., 201 Ariz. 424, 426, ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 772, 774 (App. 2001). 2 indistinguishable from an actual handgun. According Ronnie pointed the gun at her and her family. real gun, R. drove off in fear. to R., Thinking it was a Ronnie put the gun back into his car and proceeded to follow R. in his car. ¶3 The petition filed against Ronnie alleged he committed disorderly conduct. Ronnie entered a plea of responsibility for attempted disorderly conduct. In addition to other warnings, the court advised Ronnie that as a consequence of admitting to the charge, he could be committed to ADJC. Ronnie indicated he understood. ¶4 At the disposition hearing, the court received the probation officer s recommendation that Ronnie be committed to ADJC for a minimum of nine months. his concern for the potential The probation officer stated threat community and probation officers. Ronnie posed to the He said that when Ronnie showed the BB gun to R. during the altercation, he intended R. to think the gun was real, and that she and others present had no reason to believe it was not a real handgun. The officer also expressed a fear of what would have happened if an officer had come to the scene, reminding the court that Ronnie s use of the gun could have given an officer reason to fire his weapon. ¶5 According to the probation officer, Ronnie had successfully completed a prior term of probation, which ended in November 2009. He had violated his probation once by engaging 3 in disorderly conduct in his home. According to the probation officer, Ronnie, who was born in January 1994, dropped out of high school on January 8, 2010. He re-enrolled on February 23, 2010, but was expelled because of the charge against him in the altercation with R. ¶6 history superior In addition to considering Ronnie s prior delinquent and difficultly court noted the with maintaining potential threat his education, Ronnie created the by pulling the gun and expressed concern with Ronnie s decision to carry the gun in his car. In addressing Ronnie, the judge stated: Why are you carrying it around to begin with? Obviously because you think there s a possibility or an opportunity you re going to have to threaten somebody with it. Well, lo and behold, that s what happened. * * * [W]hat s a parole officer going to do? What are they going to think when you re paroled and they got to go to your house and they know you pulled out a gun on somebody, or what looks to be like a real gun? And in this case it is a gun. * * * But I do find that there s really nothing that is available here. I think you re too much of a risk to the community and certainly to our probation officers. 4 Citing a concern for community safety, the superior court ordered Ronnie committed to ADJC until his 18th birthday for a minimum period of six months. ¶7 Ronnie timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003) and 8-235(A) (2007). For the following reasons, we affirm the juvenile court s order. DISCUSSION ¶8 We have read the entire record and have identified no grounds for reversal or modification of the superior court s order. Ronnie See JV-117258, 163 Ariz. at 488, 788 P.2d at 1239. was proceedings. according to present The the and represented juvenile Arizona court Rules of by conducted Juvenile counsel its at all proceedings Procedure. The disposition imposed was permitted by A.R.S. § 8-341(A) (Supp. 2009) and consistent with the guidelines found in Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 6-304(C)(1). ¶9 Prior to Ronnie s plea of responsibility, the court informed him of the nature of the charge, the possible disposition, his constitutional rights and his right to contest adjudication. Ronnie The record supports the court s conclusion that entered his plea knowingly, intelligently. 5 voluntarily and ¶10 The superior court has discretion to order the minimum length of a juvenile s commitment to ADJC. See A.R.S. § 8- 341(A)(1)(e); see also, e.g., In re Niky R., 203 Ariz. 387, 38889, ¶¶ 1-2, 55 P.3d 81, 82-83 (App. 2002) (affirming commitment to ADJC for a minimum six months). We will not overturn the court s disposition absent an abuse of discretion. In re Miguel R., 204 Ariz. 328, 331, ¶ 3, 63 P.3d 1065, 1068 (App. 2003). ¶11 Based on Ronnie s prior delinquent history, his difficulty in maintaining his education, and his violent and threatening act, the court had reasonable grounds to conclude that commitment to ADJC was necessary for the safety of the community and the safety of the probation officers who would be responsible for Ronnie on probation. Judicial Administration § 6-304(C)(1). See Arizona Code of We conclude, therefore, that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in entering its order of disposition. CONCLUSION ¶12 We have reviewed error and find none. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. ¶13 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel s obligations pertaining to Ronnie s representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel has no further obligations, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission 6 to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). /s/______________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/_______________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge /s/_______________________________ PHILIP HALL, 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.