IN RE: A.W.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE A.W. No. 2 CA-JV 2015-0031 Filed May 7, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 103(G). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. JV20130307 The Honorable Wayne E. Yehling, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Susan C. L. Kelly, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Minor IN RE A.W. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Miller and Judge Espinosa concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 A.W. appeals from the juvenile court’s orders revoking probation imposed in October 2014, adjudicating him delinquent after he admitted two drug-related offenses charged in a December 2014 delinquency petition, and committing him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) for not less than thirty days and not beyond his eighteenth birthday. Appointed counsel has filed a brief in compliance with 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, 486-87, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237-38 (App. 1989) (juveniles adjudicated delinquent have constitutional right to Anders appeal). We affirm. ¶2 Pursuant to Anders and its progeny, counsel states she has found no meritorious issue to raise on appeal but asks this court to consider as an arguable issue whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by revoking A.W.’s probation and committing him to ADJC, “rather than ordering out-of-home placement at Sycamore Canyon Academy or a similar, less restrictive program.” Counsel also asks this court to review the entire record for fundamental, reversible error. ¶3 “We will not disturb a juvenile court’s disposition order absent an abuse of discretion.” In re John G., 191 Ariz. 205, ¶ 8, 953 P.2d 1258, 1260 (App. 1998); see also In re Thomas D., 231 Ariz. 29, ¶ 9, 290 P.3d 223, 225 (App. 2012) (juvenile court has discretion to revoke, modify, or terminate juvenile’s probation). Commitment to ADJC is among the disposition alternatives available to the juvenile court for a minor adjudicated delinquent. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e); see also A.R.S. § 41-2816(C) (authorizing ADJC and juvenile court to 2 IN RE A.W. Decision of the Court develop length-of-stay guidelines “consistent with both treatment and public safety considerations”); Ariz. Code of Jud. Admin. § 6-304 (commitment guidelines). In determining the appropriate disposition and before committing a juvenile to ADJC, the court must consider the commitment guidelines, although it is not required to follow them. See In re Niky R., 203 Ariz. 387, ¶¶ 10-12, 55 P.3d 81, 84 (App. 2002). ¶4 In its minute entry order, the juvenile court stated that it had considered “the Risk/Needs Assessment and Commitment Guidelines” and that A.W. “meets the criteria for commitment to [ADJC].” The transcript from the hearing confirms the court considered the guidelines; it expressly noted it had considered community safety, A.W.’s substance abuse issues, and the fact that commitment would give him the opportunity for rehabilitation and substance abuse treatment. The court stated, “with a very heavy heart, I will indicate that he does meet the criteria for commitment to [ADJC],” reiterating the need to protect the public and adding, “there is no less restrictive alternative that is available,” and A.W. “has engaged in a pattern of conduct characterized by persistent and delinquent offenses that cannot be controlled in a less secure setting, as demonstrated by the previous use of other alternatives.” The court also considered the fact that A.W. had absconded from Oasis Behavioral Health, an acute psychiatric hospital and residential treatment center. Based on the record before us, we cannot say the court abused its discretion. Cf. Niky R., 203 Ariz. 387, ¶ 22, 55 P.3d at 86 (affirming commitment order where juvenile had been under court supervision and had run away, committed additional delinquent acts, and failed to participate in rehabilitation programs, and court found him “a danger to himself and the community” and that he “was violent, sold and used drugs, and had no regard for the property of others”). ¶5 We have reviewed the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Rather, the record establishes A.W. admitted he had left his placement at Oasis and violated probation, which the juvenile court had imposed after adjudicating him delinquent based on his having committed disorderly conduct with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, possession of a 3 IN RE A.W. Decision of the Court narcotic, and assault. A.W. also admitted he had used or possessed marijuana and drug paraphernalia, as alleged in the December 16, 2014 delinquency petition. The record supports the court’s finding that there was an adequate factual basis for these admissions and that A.W. had entered these admissions knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. ¶6 For the reasons stated, we affirm the juvenile court’s orders revoking probation, adjudicating A.W. delinquent on the December 2014 petition, and committing him to ADJC. 4
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.
