IN RE ALAN B.
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 ALAN B. DIVISION ONE FILED: 2/26/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-JV 12-0149 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz.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. JV184663 The Honorable Jo Lynn Gentry-Lewis, Judge AFFIRMED William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By E. Catherine Leisch, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Christina Phillis, Maricopa County Public Advocate By Suzanne Sanchez, Deputy Public Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Mesa W I N T H R O P, Chief Judge ¶1 Alan adjudication resulting B. ( Juvenile ) finding disposition him in order appeals violation detaining the of juvenile probation him in a court s and the juvenile detention facility for twenty-five days and ordering him to pay $698 in detention costs. He argues the court erred in accepting his admission of a probation violation and in finding he was able to pay a portion of his detention costs. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. ANALYSIS I. Mootness ¶2 As contention a that threshold this matter, appeal is we the Because moot. address State s Juvenile has completed his detention and is now eighteen years old, the State argues he cannot obtain any actual relief even if he prevails on appeal. Juvenile asserts the disposition continues to affect his legal rights because the juvenile court ordered him to pay costs he cannot afford, and this will prevent him from applying, at least in the foreseeable future, for destruction of his juvenile delinquency record pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8-349 (West 2012). 1 ¶3 We will not consider a question presented in a moot case unless it is of great public importance or likely to recur. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 2 v. Phoenix Emp. Relations Bd., 133 Ariz. 126, 127, 650 P.2d 428, 429 (1982). Under the collateral consequences exception, however, we will review an 1 We cite the current Westlaw version of all statutes cited in this decision because no revisions material to our analysis have occurred since Juvenile committed the act forming the basis for the resulting disposition. 2 otherwise moot order if the order s consequences will continue to affect a party. Cardoso v. Soldo, __ Ariz. __, __, ¶ 9, 277 P.3d 811, 814 (App. 2012). We have repeatedly recognized this exception in criminal cases. 814-15. Also, Department, in 169 Ciulla Ariz. See id. at ___, ¶ 9, 277 P.3d at v. Miller 540, 821 ex P.2d rel. 201 Arizona (App. Highway 1991), we considered an appeal of a driver s license suspension even after the suspension consequences expired because would continue that it to had collateral affect the legal appellant specifically, it would appear on his driving record and raise his insurance rates. See id. at 541, 821 P.2d at 202 (finding the appeal not moot ). ¶4 A person over the age of eighteen who has been referred to juvenile court may apply for the destruction of his or her juvenile delinquency record only if, among other requirements, [a]ll restitution and monetary assessments have been paid contends in the assessments alleged he error full. A.R.S. juvenile court cannot afford. has § 8-349(C)(1), erred in legal Juvenile ordering him to if Because collateral (6). the court s true, consequences pay affecting Juvenile s ability to have his juvenile record destroyed, and his appeal is not moot. timely appeal. See Accordingly, we consider Juvenile s A.R.S. § 8-235(A); 103(A). 3 Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. II. Juvenile s Awareness of the Potential Disposition ¶5 At his violating a term accepted his adjudication of his admission. hearing, probation, Juvenile and argues Juvenile the on admitted juvenile appeal court that his admission was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made because the record fails to show he was aware his admission could result in incarceration in a juvenile detention facility until his eighteenth birthday. He further argues that the failure to notify him of this consequence violated principles of due process. See generally U.S. Const. amend. VI; Ariz. Const. art. 2, §§ 4, 24. ¶6 We finding that agreement. review for Juvenile an waived abuse his of discretion rights and the entered court s a plea See generally State v. Superior Court (Wing), 183 Ariz. 327, 330, 903 P.2d 635, 638 (App. 1995); see also State v. Brewer, 170 Ariz. 486, 495, 826 P.2d 783, 792 (1992) (reviewing to determine whether reasonable evidence supported the trial court s finding that a criminal defendant was competent to waive his rights and enter a plea agreement). In our review, we consider the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the court s finding. In re John M., 201 Ariz. 424, 426, ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 772, 774 (App. 2001). ¶7 Before accepting an admission of a probation violation, a juvenile court must advise a juvenile of his or her 4 applicable constitutional 32(D)(2). The knowingly, rights. court rights. must intelligently and See also Ariz. find voluntarily R.P. that waives Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 32(D)(2)(g)(i). Juv. the Ct. juvenile his or her The record must affirmatively establish that the juvenile was aware of these rights and admission. the potential consequences when entering an In re Melissa K., 197 Ariz. 491, 493, ¶ 7, 4 P.3d 1034, 1036 (App. 2000). In advising the juvenile, the court must ensure the juvenile is aware of the range of potential dispositions available to the court, including the maximum punishment of commitment to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections ( ADJC ) until age eighteen. Id. at ¶ 8; In re Amber S., 225 Ariz. 364, 367, ¶ 10, 238 P.3d 632, 635 (App. 2010). The court need not, however, disclose potential dispositions less severe than the maximum punishment. See Amber S., 225 Ariz. at 367-68, ¶¶ 7-12, 238 P.3d at 635-36 (concluding that the juvenile need not have been specifically advised that placement in foster care was a potential disposition). ¶8 In this case, the record shows the juvenile court not only advised Juvenile of the potential maximum punishment, but also explicitly advised him of the potential for incarceration in a detention facility: THE COURT: Okay. If I accept your admission, I m going to set this matter for a disposition hearing where the judge will set the consequences of your 5 his conduct. Some of the possible consequences that you face include, placing you on standard or intensive probation at home, or some place outside of the home, sentencing you to the Juvenile Department of Corrections until you turn 18, placing you in a detention facility on home detention, or in an electronic or telephonic monitoring system, which is a JEM unit. You could be ordered to do community service without pay; you could also be required to do drug screening treatment, counseling, or anything else that your probation officer wanted you to do, and you could be required to pay a fine or restitution, and this could affect your ability to get your driver s license. Do you have any consequences that you face? questions THE JUVENILE: No, ma am. of those consequences? THE COURT: (Emphasis added.) about those Do I get to choose one No, the judge gets to. Because the court advised Juvenile that he could be sentenced to ADJC until his eighteenth birthday, and/or to a less acknowledged restrictive detention understanding admission, the admission was juvenile made the court with consequences. As it incarceration, Juvenile s the facility, potential properly full to admission was Juvenile consequences found knowledge relates and the that of of Juvenile s the possible potential knowing, his for intelligent, and voluntary. 2 2 We also note that, after Juvenile admitted a previous probation violation, the court placed him on intensive probation in August 2011. At the time, Juvenile signed an acknowledgement 6 III. Imposition of Detention Costs ¶9 its Juvenile also contends that the juvenile court abused discretion in ordering that he pay a portion of his detention costs because the detention was not rehabilitative and the record does not support the court s finding that he was financially able to pay a portion of the cost. ¶10 We review the juvenile court s disposition order for an abuse of discretion. See In re Miguel R., 204 Ariz. 328, 331, ¶ 3, 63 P.3d 1065, 1068 (App. 2003). court has determined placement in a Once the juvenile detention facility is appropriate, A.R.S. § 8-243(C) obligates the court to inquire into the ability of the juvenile or those charged with his or her custody to bear the expense of juvenile detention, and order full or partial payment to the State if the court is satisfied stating he had read and understood the conditions of his probation, had them explained to him, and agreed to them. He further acknowledged that if he violated probation again, the court could order that he be detained, include a monetary assessment and/or other conditions, or commit him to ADJC. The acknowledgement further provided that a civil judgment could be entered against Juvenile for the amount of any payments he had been ordered to make that were still unpaid as of his eighteenth birthday. Juvenile s mother also signed the acknowledgement. At the August 25, 2011 disposition hearing, the court placed Juvenile under the supervision of a probation officer and in the physical custody of his mother, and also ordered that all written conditions of Juvenile s intensive probation applied, including that Juvenile could be detained in a juvenile detention facility at the discretion and further order of the court. Consequently, the record makes clear that Juvenile was aware his admission could result in his detention in a juvenile detention facility and that he could be assessed costs associated with his detention. 7 that the child, the child s estate, parent or guardian or the person who has custody of the child can bear the charges. ¶11 We find no abuse of the juvenile court s discretion. Juvenile fails to provide any support for his argument that his detention would have no rehabilitative function. 3 Additionally, the record supports the conclusion that Juvenile s home life lacked the necessary structure for Juvenile to be successful on probation. Juvenile admitted he was rarely at the family home, often stayed here and there, and was generally unsupervised. Juvenile s mother agreed that she had seldom seen Juvenile in the previous eight months, explaining that Juvenile never stay[s] home long enough for me to really talk to him, and jumps from place to place faster than a rabbit. Juvenile s Juvenile placement with a in a consistent detention place to facility live Consequently, would until he provide turned eighteen and was likely to provide Juvenile with at least some necessary structure. ¶12 Furthermore, to the extent Juvenile argues the ordered payment itself lacked a rehabilitative component, we disagree. Even if such a component was lacking, however, the assessment 3 Moreover, detention may be imposed as a condition of probation in a juvenile case not only for rehabilitation, but also to limit the risks to the community. See Navajo County Juv. Action No. 92-J-040, 180 Ariz. 562, 563, 885 P.2d 1127, 1128 (App. 1994). Juvenile s placement in a detention facility reduced the risk to the community by limiting his opportunity to commit further crimes. 8 helped fulfill the proper function of reimbursing the government for the costs of services rendered. See A.R.S. § 8-243(C); see also State v. Connolly, 216 Ariz. 132, 132-33, ¶ 3, 163 P.3d 1082, 1082-83 (App. 2007) (concluding that court-ordered attorney and indigent assessment fees are not a penalty, fine, or sanction because they are imposed to reimburse the county for costs of legal services and are not punitive in nature or related to other court-imposed penalties ). ¶13 Also, pursuant to § 8-243(C), the court did inquire into Juvenile s ability to bear the expense of his detention. The court was informed that the daily cost of detention is $109. Juvenile informed the court that he had been earning wages doing landscaping work, and was also receiving monthly social security benefits in the amount provided to his parents. of $698, which he regularly After determining that Juvenile had the financial ability to bear the expense, the court ordered Juvenile (through his parents) to pay up to the amount of one monthly social security check as partial reimbursement for the cost of his detention. In this case, the amount ordered was reasonably the related to cost of Juvenile s detention, consisted of only a small percentage of the actual cost, and is supported by the evidence. discretion in charging We find no abuse of the court s Juvenile and/or portion of the costs of his detention. 9 his parents with a CONCLUSION ¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court s adjudication and disposition order placing Juvenile in a detention facility, as well as the court s order requiring Juvenile to pay a portion of the costs of his detention. ________________/S/______________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Chief Judge CONCURRING: _______________/S/_________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge ______________/S/__________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge 10
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.
