IN RE JOSEPH H.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED BY CLERK NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND M AY 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. JUNE 17 2009 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN RE JOSEPH H. 2 CA-JV 2009-0005 2 CA-JV 2009-0027 (Consolidated) DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 28, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. 18625001 Honorable Patricia G. Escher, Judge AFFIRMED Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Dale Cardy Nuccio & Shirly By Salvatore Nuccio V Ã S Q U E Z, Judge. Tucson Attorneys for State Tucson Attorneys for Minor Thirteen-year-old Joseph H. filed a notice of appeal from the juvenile court s ¶1 January 2009 order adjudicating him delinquent for committing criminal damage and placing him on probation for one year. Subsequently, Joseph filed a second notice of appeal from the court s order of March 11, 2009, directing him to pay restitution in the amount of $500. On our own motion, we consolidated the appeals.1 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and In re Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486-87, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237-38 (App. 1989), avowing he has reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel has provided a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record. Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its ¶2 entirety and are satisfied it supports counsel s recitation of the facts. Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court s orders, see In re John M., 201 Ariz. 424, ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 772, 774 (App. 2001), the evidence established that Joseph intentionally or 1 Had we not consolidated these appeals, Joseph s appeal from the juvenile court s January order would have been subject to dismissal, as it was not a final appealable order. See In re Eric L., 189 Ariz. 482, 484, 943 P.2d 842, 844 (App. 1997) (when restitution is at issue, final order, for purposes of [appeal] is the restitution order ). Because Joseph also timely appealed the restitution order, the court s orders pertaining to adjudication, disposition, and restitution are all properly addressed in his opening brief. See id. (notice of appeal of restitution order encompasses all previous orders entered by the juvenile court ). 2 recklessly damaged a water fountain on school property, necessitating repairs that cost over $1,000. ¶3 Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court s finding that Joseph had committed criminal damage, see A.R.S. § 13-1604(A)(2), (B)(3), and the court s disposition and restitution orders were statutorily authorized, see A.R.S. §§ 8-341(A)(1)(a), 8-344(A). We have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review, see Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, and we therefore affirm the court s adjudication, disposition, and restitution orders. ______________________________________ GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Judge CONCURRING: _______________________________________ PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge _______________________________________ J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., 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.