IN RE K.E.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE K.E. No. 2 CA-JV 2016-0186 Filed December 1, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Pima County No. JV20150656 The Honorable Gilbert Rosales Jr., Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Domingo DeGrazia, Tucson Counsel for Minor IN RE K.E. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Miller concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Seventeen-year-old K.E. appeals from the juvenile court’s orders adjudicating him delinquent for use of marijuana and ordering him to complete an online marijuana education course. Counsel has filed a brief in reliance on Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating he has reviewed the record and “has found no arguable issues on appeal.” See also In re Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486-87, 788 P.2d 1235, 1237-38 (App. 1989). He asks this court to review the record for fundamental error. ¶2 We find no reversible error. 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 a security officer had seen K.E. smoking marijuana at school and that the officer had found a glass pipe containing burnt marijuana in the place he saw another student, who smoked with K.E., set the pipe. We also conclude the court appropriately exercised its discretion in its disposition order. See A.R.S. §§ 8-341, 13-3405(A)(1); 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 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have found no fundamental or reversible error. Accordingly, the juvenile court’s adjudication and disposition are affirmed. 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.