IN RE RICARDO 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 FILED BY CLERK SEP -6 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN RE RICARDO S. 2 CA-JV 2013-0071 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 28, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Cause No. JV2012173 Honorable Kimberly A. Corsaro, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Law Office of Thomas E. Higgins By Thomas E. Higgins E C K E R S T R O M, Judge. Tucson Attorney for Minor ¶1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Ricardo S. admitted having possessed drug paraphernalia. The juvenile court adjudicated Ricardo delinquent and placed him on a six-month term of probation. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). See also 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 his review, there is no issue of arguable merit in this case. ¶2 We agree with counsel s assessment. The record supports the juvenile court s findings that Ricardo s admission to having possessed drug paraphernalia was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and that he provided an adequate factual basis to support those admissions. See A.R.S. § 13-3415(A), (F)(2). And the record establishes the court appropriately exercised its discretion in placing Ricardo on probation. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(b), (B); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 31(A); In re John G., 191 Ariz. 205, ¶ 8, 953 P.2d 1258, 1260 (App. 1998) ( We will not disturb a juvenile court s disposition order absent an abuse of discretion. ). ¶3 The juvenile court s adjudication and disposition are affirmed. /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 2

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.