In re Jesus S

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 JESUS S. 1 CA-JV 11-0159 DIVISION ONE FILED: 11/29/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County Cause No. S1400JV20100577 The Honorable Kathryn Stocking-Tate, Commissioner AFFIRMED Yuma County Attorney s Office By Jon R. Smith Attorneys for Appellee Yuma The Law Offices of Kelly A. Smith Attorneys for Appellant Yuma G E M M I L L, Judge ¶1 order Jesus S. appeals from the juvenile court s disposition placing him on juvenile intensive probation as a consequence of violating his standard probation. Jesus S. s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969); and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237 (App. 1989), stating that she has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable issues. Counsel therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error. 96 See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, (App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews the entire to Arizona record for reversible error). ¶2 Revised We have Statutes appellate ( A.R.S. ) jurisdiction section pursuant 8-235(A) (2007) and Rule 103(A) of the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 sustaining We review the facts in the light most favorable to the juvenile court s orders reasonable inferences against Jesus S. and resolve all See In re John M., 201 Ariz. 424, 426, ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 772, 774 (App. 2001); State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994). ¶4 probation Jesus S. was found to be in violation of his standard during following acts: the July 27, 2011 advisory hearing for the failing to use the UA call-in system; failing 2 to obey a written directive of his probation officer to attend a community restitution program; and failing to attend mandatory substance abuse group counseling sessions. During the hearing, the juvenile court found that Jesus S. knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel and also knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily admitted to the violations of the terms of probation. ¶5 set The juvenile court ordered a predisposition report and a disposition disposition hearing hearing, for the August juvenile 10, 2011. court At the followed the recommendation of the probation department and placed Jesus S. on juvenile intensive probation for twelve months. court also community waived Jesus restitution S. s and remaining ordered that further ordered Jesus S. to eighteen he thirty-two hour intensive probation program. participate The juvenile hours participate of in a The juvenile court in substance abuse counseling and any other counseling recommended by his probation officer. Moreover, Jesus S. was ordered to continue to use the UA call-in system and maintain a twelve noon curfew. ¶6 Jesus S. filed a timely notice of appeal from the juvenile court s disposition order. DISCUSSION ¶7 We have searched error and find none. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 3 881; JV-117258, 163 Ariz. at 487-88, 788 P.2d at 1238-39. S. was present hearing, as at was both his the advisory mother. Jesus hearing S. and waived Jesus disposition his right to counsel at the advisory hearing; his mother also agreed to the waiver of counsel. Jesus S. was also given the opportunity to speak at both hearings. The juvenile court proceedings were conducted in full compliance with Jesus S. s constitutional and statutory rights Juvenile Court. and the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the The disposition was within the juvenile court s authority under A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1) (Supp. 2011) and Rule 30 of the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. ¶8 After filing of this decision, counsel s obligations pertaining ended. the Jesus S. s representation in this appeal have Counsel need do no more than inform him of the status of appeal reveals to an and his issue future options, appropriate for unless submission Supreme Court by petition for review. counsel s to the review Arizona See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Jesus S. has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per petition for review. Juv. Ct. 91(A). 4 See Ariz. R.P. CONCLUSION ¶9 Finding no error, we affirm Jesus S. s disposition. ___/s/_________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge CONCURRING: ______/s/________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge ______/s/________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge 5

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.