IN RE R.M.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE R.M. No. 2 CA-JV 2016-0135 Filed September 21, 2016 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Gila County No. S0400JV201500216 The Honorable Bryan B. Chambers, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson Counsel for Minor IN RE R.M. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Espinosa concurred. S T A R I N G, Judge: ¶1 R.M. appeals from the juvenile court’s orders adjudicating him delinquent for one count of sexual conduct with a minor and placing him on probation. We affirm. ¶2 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, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999). See also In re Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486-87, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237-38 (App. 1989) (applying Anders to appeals in delinquency proceedings). Pursuant to Anders, counsel avows she has reviewed the record and has found “no arguable issues” to raise on appeal. Counsel also has complied with the requirements of Clark by “setting forth a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record,” satisfactorily demonstrating that she “has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record.” 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97. She asks this court to search the record for “error.” ¶3 R.M. was charged by delinquency petition with two counts of sexual conduct with a minor, and he was adjudicated delinquent on one of those counts in May 2016.1 In June 2016, R.M. was placed on Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision until his eighteenth birthday. 2 “[W]e view the evidence in the light most 1R.M. was found incompetent after the original delinquency petition was filed in 2013; he was then restored to competency and the adjudication hearing took place in May 2016. 2R.M. will turn eighteen in November 2016. 2 IN RE R.M. Decision of the Court favorable to sustaining the adjudication.” In re John M., 210 Ariz. 424, ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 772, 774 (App. 2001). So viewed, the evidence established that in 2012, R.M. had oral sexual contact with the thentwo-year-old victim. ¶4 We conclude substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that R.M. was responsible for sexual conduct with a minor, and the court’s disposition was statutorily authorized. See A.R.S. §§ 8-341, 13-1405. We find no fundamental or reversible error, and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. ¶5 Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s adjudication and disposition orders. 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.
