IN RE: H.E.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE H.E. No. 2 CA-JV 2015-0081 Filed July 23, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. JV20140268 The Honorable Richard E. Gordon, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Nuccio & Shirly, P.C., Tucson By Jeanne Shirly Counsel for Minor IN RE H.E. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Miller authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Espinosa concurred. M I L L E R, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Seventeen-year-old H.E. appeals from the juvenile court’s April 2015 order adjudicating him delinquent for aggravated assault on a police officer and placing him on probation. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486-87, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237-38 (App. 1989), avowing she has reviewed the record and found no arguable issues 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.” ¶2 Pursuant to our obligation under 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 shows that H.E. was one of five teenaged boys detained by police officers during their investigation of a fight; while in handcuffs, he struggled to his feet and kicked one of the uniformed officers in the shin, causing him pain and bruising. ¶3 Substantial evidence thus supported the juvenile court’s finding that H.E. was responsible for an assault knowingly committed upon a peace officer, an aggravated assault pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(1) and 13-1204(A)(8)(a), and the court’s disposition was statutorily authorized, see A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(a). We have found no fundamental error, no reversible error, and no 2 IN RE H.E. Decision of the Court arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, the court’s adjudication and disposition orders are affirmed. 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.
