IN RE ALEXANDREA F.

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 FILED BY CLERK AUG 15 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN RE ALEXANDREA F. 2 CA-JV 2013-0036 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 28, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. 14272102 Honorable Jane Butler, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Amanda Ortiz-Moreno Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Susan C. L. Kelly H O W A R D, Chief Judge. Tucson Attorneys for State Tucson Attorneys for Minor Minor Alexandrea F. appeals from the juvenile court s April 2013 order ¶1 adjudicating her delinquent for the offense of shoplifting, placing her on probation for a six-month term, and directing that she be detained pending placement approved by Child Protective Services (CPS). Citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), counsel has provided a factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record and asks this court to search the record for error. See also In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486-87, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237-38 (App. 1989) (juvenile entitled to Anders appeal from delinquency disposition). Counsel states [t]he only arguable issue which appears to exist in this delinquency appeal is . . . [w]hether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Alexandrea to be detained pending CPS placement, but maintains her review indicate[s] that this is not a meritorious issue which can be argued in a formal appellate brief. 1 ¶2 Consistent with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its 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 the court adjudicated Alexandrea 1 Counsel s statement that this issue is not a meritorious one that can be argued in a formal appellate brief is somewhat imprecise. In determining whether full adversarial briefing is required, the question for both counsel and this court is not whether a claim ultimately would be found meritorious, but whether it provides arguably meritorious grounds for relief. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81 (1988) (emphasis added). Our review persuades us, however, that counsel has used the phrase arguable issue in the unusual way the Supreme Court used it in Anders, to mean an issue arguably supporting the appeal even though the appeal was wholly frivolous. Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285 (2000). Such an issue does not warrant a merits brief, id., and counsel has not filed one. 2 delinquent after she admitted taking items from a local store s display without paying for them. Alexandrea, who had been placed with her grandparents and was due to deliver a child in June 2013, then failed to appear for two scheduled disposition hearings. When Alexandrea and her grandmother appeared in response to the court s order to show cause, the court conducted a disposition hearing and heard evidence that Alexandrea had actually been living with a boyfriend whose address was unknown. According to a CPS caseworker, CPS was attempting to arrange an alternative placement. The court placed Alexandrea on probation and, upon finding the existing family placement contrary to Alexandrea s welfare, ordered her taken into custody pending a CPS-approved placement for her. ¶3 We conclude substantial evidence supported the juvenile court s adjudication of delinquency and the court s disposition was statutorily authorized. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1). 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 judgment of delinquency and its disposition. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. VÃ¡squez GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, 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.