IN RE CARLOS M.

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 CARLOS M. DIVISION ONE FILED: 5/23/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-JV 13-0027 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JV558382 The Honorable James R. Rummage, Commissioner AFFIRMED William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Suzanne W. Sanchez, Deputy Public Advocate Attorneys for Appellee Mesa Preciado Law Firm PLC By Stephanie Preciado Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 and Carlos M. appeals from his adjudication of delinquency disposition of minor consumption of spirituous liquor ( minor consumption ). Ariz. Rev. Stat. ( A.R.S. ) § 4-244(41) (Supp. searching 2012). After the record and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Carlos M. s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); State and Maricopa v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, County Juvenile Action 451 No. P.2d 878 (1969); JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 485-88, 788 P.2d 1235, 1236-39 (App. 1989), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. After reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and, therefore, affirm Carlos M. s adjudication and disposition. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 On August 25, 2012, at approximately 12:48 in the morning, police brought Carlos M. to a DUI command post because they suspected he had consumed alcohol. A police officer observed Carlos M. for approximately an hour and a half before driving him home and then ticketing him for minor consumption. Although Carlos M. did not admit to consuming alcohol and refused a breath test, the officer testified at the adjudication Carlos M. had bloodshot, watery eyes, slurred speech, an odor of alcohol coming from his breath, and could not remember his home address. 1 [W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the adjudication. In re John M., 201 Ariz. 424, 426, ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 772, 774 (App. 2001) (citation omitted). 2 ¶3 The court placed Carlos M. on summary probation and ordered him restitution, to complete attend a 12 Students hours of Against unpaid Destructive community Decisions class, and write a two-page essay on the experience and dangers of underage alcohol consumption. DISCUSSION ¶4 We have reviewed error and find none. 881. Substantial adjudication. Carlos the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at evidence M. was supported represented the juvenile court s by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and was personally present at all critical stages. The court imposed an appropriate disposition for Carlos M. s adjudication. A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(a) (Supp. 2012). CONCLUSION ¶5 We decline to order briefing and affirm the court s adjudication of delinquency and disposition. 3 ¶6 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), Carlos M. s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Counsel need do no more than inform Carlos M. of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission review. to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 107(A), (J). /s/ ______________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge /s/ RANDALL M. HOWE, 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.