IN RE JESUS G.-C.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED BY CLERK 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 JUL 17 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN RE JESUS G.-C. 2 CA-JV 2013-0025 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 28, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. 20168401 Honorable K.C. Stanford, Judge AFFIRMED Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Susan C. L. Kelly E C K E R S T R O M, Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Minor Sixteen-year-old Jesus G.-C. appeals from the juvenile court s orders ¶1 adjudicating him delinquent for second-degree burglary, ordering him to pay $1,651.74 in restitution, and placing him on probation for nine months. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237 (App. 1989) (juveniles adjudicated delinquent have constitutional right to Anders appeal). Counsel states that, based on her review of the record, [t]he only arguable issue which appears to exist in this delinquency appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence that Jesus either entered the victim s residence or that he intended to commit theft or a felony within that residence. 1 She asks us to review the record for fundamental error. ¶2 Based on our review, we find no reversible error. See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3, 270 P.3d 870, 872 (App. 2012). 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 shows that in June 2012, the victim returned home to find the gate to the backyard ajar, Jesus s co-defendant running out through the backside with a bag of stuff that belonged to her son, and Jesus with his head and arm inside her son s broken bedroom window. This evidence is sufficient to support the court s finding that Jesus committed second-degree burglary. See A.R.S. § 13-1507(A). The record also 1 Counsel also contends, A thorough review of the case appears to indicate that this is not a meritorious issue which can be argued in a formal appellate brief. 2 establishes the court soundly exercised its broad discretion in determining the appropriate disposition. See In re Themika M., 206 Ariz. 553, ¶ 5, 81 P.3d 344, 345 (App. 2003) (juvenile court has broad discretion to determine appropriate disposition of minor adjudicated delinquent and its determination will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion). ¶3 entirety. Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its See Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3, 270 P.3d at 872. We have found no fundamental or reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See id. We therefore affirm the juvenile court s adjudication and disposition. /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Presiding Judge /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, 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.
