IN RE JOHN 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 JOHN S. ) ) ) ) ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/15/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt No. 1 CA-JV 13-0157 DEPARTMENT S MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G) Ariz.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. JV184524 The Honorable Roger L. Hartsell, Judge Pro Tempore ADJUDICATION REVERSED Christina Phillis, Maricopa County Public Advocate By A. Jason Max, Deputy Public Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Mesa William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Karen Kemper, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellees. Phoenix J O H N S E N, Judge ¶1 order John S. adjudicating probation. We ( Appellant ) him accept reverse the adjudication. in the appeals violation State s the of superior two confession terms of court s of his error and ¶2 The superior court placed Appellant on probation after he was adjudicated delinquent of aggravated criminal damage, a Class 1 misdemeanor. Among the terms of his probation were that he write a letter of apology to a school and complete at least four sessions of tutoring. After he successfully completed each term of his probation, he was to be released without further order of the court. ¶3 Appellant s probation officer filed a petition to revoke his probation, alleging Appellant had violated a term of his probation that required him to provide notice of a change of address. had moved At the hearing, there was no dispute that Appellant Appellant without still providing was on notice. probation The at issue the time was whether he moved. Appellant argued that before he changed addresses, he had been discharged from probation automatically completion of each term of probation. upon his successful There was no dispute that Appellant had written the letter of apology and had completed the four tutoring sessions. The superior court found Appellant remained on probation, however, because he had not informed his probation officer in writing that he had completed those terms. ¶4 On appeal, Appellant argues the superior court erred because the terms of his probation did not state in writing that he must provide written notice that he had provided the apology and completed the tutoring. 2 ¶5 A probationer must have received written notice of the term of probation upon which a petition to revoke is based. In re Richard M., 196 Ariz. 84, 86, ¶ 8, 993 P.2d 1048, 1050 (App. 1999); In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-508488, 185 Ariz. 295, 301, 915 P.2d 1250, 1256 (App. 1996). acknowledges in confessing error, the terms As the State of Appellant s probation did not expressly direct him to notify his probation officer that tutoring. he had written the apology and completed the Because Appellant lacked written notice that he was to notify his probation officer in writing when he had written the apology probation reverse and before the finished he the changed adjudication of tutoring, his he address. Appellant in was released Accordingly, violation of from we his probation. ______________/s/________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Chief Judge CONCURRING: ______________/s/__________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge ______________/s/__________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge 3
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.
