In re Jonathan F.

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 JONATHAN F. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/2/10 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DN No. 1 CA-JV 10-0109 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G) Ariz.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. JV553290 The Honorable Linda A. Akers, 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 admitting On May 5, 2010, Jonathan F. entered a plea agreement, to possession of marijuana, a violation § 13-3405(A)(1) (2010) and a class 1 misdemeanor. of A.R.S. See A.R.S. § 13-604(A) (permitting a court to enter judgment of a conviction for a class 1 misdemeanor if a defendant is convicted of a class 6 felony involving a non-dangerous offense). Jonathan appeals from the juvenile court s order placing him on standard probation. ¶2 Appellate counsel for Jonathan 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). Counsel for Jonathan has searched the record and can find no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. At Jonathan s request, however, counsel asks this court to determine whether the trial court erred when it refused to grant [Jonathan] a restricted driver[ s] license for the purpose of driving between his home and place of employment. and find no fundamental error. We have reviewed the record Accordingly, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 usable On September 10, 2009, Jonathan knowingly possessed a amount of marijuana while center in Scottsdale, Arizona. at the Pavilions shopping On March 5, 2010, the State filed a petition alleging that Jonathan was delinquent, and an advisory hearing was set for March 30, 2010. Jonathan failed to appear for the advisory hearing and a temporary custody warrant was issued. The juvenile court proceeded in absentia and found 2 probable cause to believe that Jonathan committed the acts quashed when alleged in the petition. ¶4 On April 1, 2010, the warrant was Jonathan appeared for the rescheduled advisory hearing. At this hearing Jonathan denied the charge against him, and the court appointed him counsel and set a pre-adjudication hearing for May 5, 2010. ¶5 At the May 5, 2010 pre-adjudication hearing, parties informed the court of a plea agreement. the Jonathan s counsel informed the court that the State offered to reduce the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor in exchange for Jonathan s admission of possession of marijuana. The State clarified that the offer included a stipulation that the court would suspend Jonathan s driver s license. Counsel for Jonathan responded, We were unaware of that stipulation, Your Honor. in writing. That was not I was told it was just possession of marijuana as a misdemeanor; there was no written term or any such stipulation mentioned. The juvenile court asked if the offer was then declined. ¶6 After conferring with her client, Jonathan s counsel informed the court that he was still willing to accept the plea agreement. decision The court asked if the parties wanted it to make a based conviction on should the be case law reported 3 as to to the whether or Department not of the Motor Vehicles[.] The parties agreed, and Jonathan s counsel stated, That s the impression we originally had[.] ¶7 The court proceeded with a change of plea. During its explanation of the charge and the potential consequences, the court stated, You could lose your privilege to drive -- and, in fact, if the Court determines it s appropriate to report this conviction to the Department of Motor Vehicles, then the Department of Motor Vehicles would decide whether or not to revoke your driver s license. But most statute, your license would be revoked[.] likely, under the When the court asked if Jonathan understood, he responded affirmatively. ¶8 The court then advised Jonathan of his constitutional rights, including innocence, and the the right right to to trial, confront the presumption witnesses against of him. Jonathan indicated that he understood that by accepting the plea agreement he would be giving up those rights. When the court asked if he was threatened or forced to accept the plea, or if he was promised a particular consequence or disposition if he accepted the plea, Jonathan responded in the negative. Jonathan agreed that he knowingly possessed a usable amount of marijuana while at the Pavilions shopping center in Scottsdale, Arizona. The court found that the plea was entered into knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that it was supported by a factual basis. Accordingly, it accepted the plea. 4 ¶9 After hearing from the parties with respect to the disposition of sentence,1 the court placed Jonathan on standard probation, which included, inter alia, the following conditions: (1) random drug testing; (2) a 9 p.m. curfew; and (3) school attendance every weekday. With respect to his driver s license, the court ordered that the fact of this conviction be reported to the declined Department to of approve Motor any Vehicles. type of The temporary court further license because Jonathan was not currently enrolled in school and he was working for a family business, where members of his family could provide transportation to and from work. ¶10 Jonathan filed a motion to reconsider, requesting that the juvenile court grant him a restricted license, so that he could drive to and from school and to obtain employment. motion explained that he no longer worked for the The family business, and was currently employed by Integra-Crete, LLC, in Chandler, Arizona. ¶11 The trial court denied the motion. Jonathan timely filed a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003) and 8-235(A) (2007), and Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(A). 1 Jonathan requested that the court at least permit him to obtain a restricted license. 5 DISCUSSION ¶12 We have read and considered counsel s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error. Ariz. at 488, 788 P.2d at 1239. See JV-117258, 163 We find none. I. LICENSE ¶13 Jonathan argues that the trial court erred when it refused to approve a restricted driver s license. ¶14 We disagree. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-3320 (Supp. 2009), the Arizona Department of Transportation is required to refuse to issue a license to a minor who enumerated in the statute. commits any one of the offenses But it is left to the discretion of the trial court whether to forward to MVD the record of a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for possessing marijuana. In re Martin M., 223 Ariz. 244, 248, ¶ 14, 221 P.3d 1058, 1062 (App. 2009). A juvenile court has broad discretion to determine the appropriate disposition of a delinquent juvenile. Id. at ¶ 15. ¶15 When, as here, the juvenile court s decision is not arbitrary or capricious, we will not disturb the disposition. See id. Here, the juvenile court found that a driver s license was not a necessity for Jonathan. It reasoned that because Jonathan worked for his family s business, a family member could provide transportation to and from work. Additionally, the court noted that Jonathan was not currently enrolled in school, 6 despite the fact that he had been court-ordered to do so. The facts support the juvenile court s decision. ¶16 Moreover, Jonathan at stipulated the that time the of the juvenile disposition court would hearing, determine whether a copy of the conviction would be submitted to the Motor Vehicle Division. To be sure, he did not stipulate to the court s decision concerning a restricted license. its explanation of the consequences of pleading But during guilty, the juvenile court cautioned that his license would most likely be revoked. The implication of that statement was that Jonathan would be without a license to drive. It was well within the court s broad discretion to deny his request for a restricted license. ¶17 Although the juvenile court did not provide an explanation for its refusal to approve a restricted license in its ruling on the motion for reconsideration, we find no error. No rule requires the court to state reasons for denying a motion for reconsideration, and the court was not informed of the purported change in circumstances before issuing its ruling at the disposition hearing. II. REMAINING ISSUES ¶18 The record indicates that all the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the laws of this State and the applicable rules of the court. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 6, 29, 7 30. Jonathan represented by was present counsel at all critical during the change disposition and on this appeal. stages of plea and was hearing, The juvenile court informed Jonathan of his constitutional rights, and the record indicates that Jonathan knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his rights pursuant to Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 28(C)(5). was informed of the nature of the charge and Jonathan the range of possible dispositions and the right to plead not delinquent. The record reflects a factual basis for the plea and the disposition falls within the authority of the juvenile court. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(a) (Supp. 2009). CONCLUSION ¶19 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), Jonathan s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. 8 Counsel need only inform Jonathan of the status of his appeal and of his 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/ ____________________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Presiding Judge /s/ ____________________________________ DONN KESSLER, Judge 9

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.