In re Lamont T.

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 LAMONT T. 1 CA-JV 10-0259 DIVISION ONE FILED: 02/22/11 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JV553328 The Honorable David K. Udall, Judge AFFIRMED William Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney by Jeff W. Trudgian, Deputy County Attorney Appeals Bureau Chief Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Suzanne Sanchez, Deputy Juvenile Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant B A R K E R, Judge Phoenix Mesa ¶1 Lamont T. appeals from the disposition order finding him in violation of his probation terms and ordering him to serve a Juvenile minimum of six Corrections months ( ADJC ). in the Arizona Lamont s Department counsel, finding of no arguable grounds for appeal, filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 1235, 1237 (App. 1989). 163 Ariz. 484, 486, 788 P.2d This court s obligation under Anders is to search the record for fundamental error. 386 U.S. at 744. Having done so, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History ¶2 On June 23, 2010, Lamont (fifteen years old) pleaded delinquent to felony attempted sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen. The juvenile residential treatment with ( YDI ) on standard terms. Five months later, Lamont s probation officer filed a the probation court Youth with placed Lamont Development additional sex in Institute offender three-count probation violation petition on November 9, 2010. ¶3 of While at YDI, Lamont behaved erratically. the November 18 advisory hearing, Lamont s At the time YDI therapist testified that Lamont recently changed medications and that he now completed his work with increased focus. However, despite coordinated gender treatment for bipolar disorder, identity disorder, and sexual abuse as an offender and victim, Lamont 2 generated at least ten YDI Infraction/Incident Reports in three months. In the September 8, 2010 report, a YDI employee recorded witnessing Lamont inappropriately touch another peer. And, on August 17 and September 5, 2010, Lamont self-reported to YDI staff that he had engaged in other sexual interactions in violation of YDI s rule against inappropriate sexualized behavior with peers. ¶4 Lamont admitted to one probation violation - failure to obey the rules of his placement - and the remaining two probation after violations considering were less dismissed. restrictive On December alternatives, 13, the 2010, juvenile court committed Lamont to ADJC with a minimum six-month term and deferred the issue of sex offender registration. ¶5 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 ¶6 We have read and considered the entire record and have found no fundamental error. by counsel at all Lamont was present and represented proceedings. The juvenile court informed Lamont of his constitutional rights, and the record indicates Lamont knowingly, voluntarily, 3 and intelligently waived his rights pursuant to Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 28(C)(5) when he admitted to the probation violation. Lamont was advised in open court of the nature of this charge and the nature of the possible disposition. Lamont was under eighteen years of age at the time of the final order and was within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Conclusion ¶7 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 Lamont s counsel in this appeal have ended subject to the following. Counsel need do no more than inform Lamont of the status of this appeal and of his future options, appropriate for unless counsel s submission petition for review. to the review Arizona reveals Supreme an issue Court by See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(A), (J). /s/ __________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge /s/ ____________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge 4

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.