IN RE ANTONIO 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 ANTONIO B. ) ) ) ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 9/5/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-JV 13-0061 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G) Ariz.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. JV557460 The Honorable Peter A. Thompson, Judge VACATED William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney by Andrea L. Kever, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee The Law Offices of Kevin Breger, PLLC by Kevin Breger Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Scottsdale T H U M M A, Judge ¶1 This is the second appeal addressing restitution for a criminal trespass the Juvenile admitted committing when he was 17 years old. On December 6, 2012, while the prior appeal was pending, the Juvenile turned 18 years old. Notwithstanding that critical birthday, no special action relief or expedited consideration was requested and no notice was provided to the court. In a January 3, 2013 memorandum decision, the court in the prior appeal remanded, directing that, [o]n remand, the juvenile court shall determine an appropriate restitution award for the insurance company [victims]. We otherwise affirm the judgment of the juvenile court. In re Antonio B., 1 CA-JV 120162, 2013 WL 49736, *5, ¶ 23 (Ariz. App. Jan. 3, 2013) (mem. dec.). Following that decision, no motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed and the mandate issued in that prior appeal. ¶2 On remand, the juvenile court dutifully followed the mandate s directive (as it was obligated to do) and on March 4, 2013 issued an order awarding, for the first time, two insurance company victims a total of $16,000 in restitution. From that order, the Juvenile timely appeals. This court has jurisdiction over that appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 8-235. 1 DISCUSSION ¶3 It is clear that the insurance company victims timely filed restitution claims before the Juvenile turned 18 years of age. It is equally clear that the insurance company victims can 1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 2 press independent civil claims against the Juvenile for the amounts sought here. The sole question in this appeal is whether the juvenile court lost jurisdiction to issue the March 4, 2013 restitution awards when the Juvenile turned 18 on December 6, 2012. ¶4 the Juvenile court jurisdiction shall be as provided by legislature Ariz. Const. initiative or or art. the 6, people § 15. referendum, by initiative Although the there Legislature or referendum. is no has relevant directed that [e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, jurisdiction of a child that is obtained by the juvenile court for a delinquency shall, as applicable here, be retained by it . . . until the child becomes eighteen years of age. A.R.S. § 8-202(G). This until the child becomes eighteen years of age language means only until a juvenile s 18th birthday. See State v. Espinoza, 229 Ariz. 421, 427, ¶ 24, 276 P.3d 55, 61 (App. 2012); see also McBeth v. Rose, 111 Ariz. 399, 402, 531 P.2d 156, 159 (1975) (when person is no longer a child under the age of eighteen the juvenile court has no jurisdiction to try him ). Accordingly, except as otherwise provided by law, juvenile court jurisdiction ended when the Juvenile turned 18 on December 6, 2012. ¶5 A few statutes grant the juvenile court jurisdiction to enter specific orders after a juvenile turns 18 years of age. 3 Those statutes allow an adult to apply for specific relief from a juvenile juvenile. court See order A.R.S. § entered 8-348 when the applicant (authorizing, with was a certain exceptions, person who is at least eighteen years of age to ask to set aside a delinquency or incorrigibility adjudication and authorizing juvenile court to do so under certain circumstances); A.R.S. § 8-349 (authorizing person who is at least eighteen years of age to request destruction of juvenile records and authorizing juvenile court to do so under certain circumstances); attains following A.R.S. thirty § years of delinquency 13-912.01(C) age (authorizing to have civil adjudication for certain person rights who restored offenses). No such statute applies here. ¶6 the In arguing the juvenile court had jurisdiction to make March 4, 2013 restitution awards three months Juvenile s 18th birthday, the State relies on: (1) A.R.S. § 8-383(A), enacted to implement in juvenile proceedings the Victims Bill of Rights in Article 2 § 2.1(A)(8) of the Arizona Constitution, which provides that rights for individual victims of juvenile offenses are enforceable through appellate proceedings and the discharge of all proceedings related to restitution. If a delinquent is ordered to pay restitution to a victim, the rights and duties continue to be enforceable until restitution is paid or a judgment is entered in favor of the victim pursuant to [A.R.S.] section 8-344; and 4 after the (2) A.R.S. § 8-344(D), which states [t]he juvenile court shall retain jurisdiction of the case after the juvenile attains eighteen years of age for the purpose of modifying the manner in which court ordered payments are to be made. 2 Neither of these provisions - or any other provision this court has located - gives the juvenile court jurisdiction to order restitution, for the first time, after a juvenile turns 18 years old. ¶7 The insurance company victims in this case have more limited rights than do victims who are individuals and there is no suggestion that those victims rights were denied here. See A.R.S. § 8-385 notice and (legal an entity opportunity victim to be has victims rights at proceeding heard any to relating to restitution or disposition of the delinquent. ); see also A.R.S. § 8-382(20) ( Victim means a person . . . ); A.R.S. § 8-383(A) (specifying rights for victim who is a person, [e]xcept extent as A.R.S. provided § in 8-383(A) A.R.S. applies § to 8-385). Moreover, to the these insurance company victims, the State has not shown how that statute extends the jurisdiction of a juvenile court to first impose a restitution order after a juvenile s 18th birthday. 2 Although the State also cites Ariz. R. Juv. Ct. P. 106, a procedural rule cannot enlarge jurisdiction granted by statute. See Book Cellar, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 139 Ariz. 332, 334-35, 678 P.2d 517, 519-20 (App. 1983) (rules of court cannot confer or enlarge the jurisdiction of any court ). 5 ¶8 Although A.R.S. § 8-344(D) extends juvenile court jurisdiction after a juvenile turns 18 years of age for the limited purpose of modifying the manner in which court ordered payments are to be relevant made, restitution that statute must order for to apply, the have been issued before the juvenile turned 18. Here, it is undisputed that there is no such order. Moreover, A.R.S. § 8-344(D) does not suggest that a juvenile court has jurisdiction to issue, for the first time, a restitution order after a juvenile s 18th birthday. ¶9 upon Individually by the exception State to the or do Accordingly, December 2012, 6, not clear limitation. the collectively, otherwise A.R.S. because juvenile the provisions provide[] by relied law an § 8-202(G) jurisdictional the Juvenile turned court lacked 18 on jurisdiction to award for the first time restitution to the insurance company victims after that date. 6 CONCLUSION ¶10 The March 4, 2013 restitution order is vacated. /S/__________________________ SAMUEL A. THUMMA, Judge CONCURRING: /S/_____________________________ DONN KESSLER, Presiding Judge /S/_____________________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge 7

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.