IN RE A.M.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE A.M. No. 2 CA-JV 2020-0043 Filed December 2, 2020 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Santa Cruz County Nos. JV18158, JV19004, JV19005, JV19050, JV19051, JV19067, JV19166, JV19167, and JV19093 The Honorable Thomas Fink, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Minor IN RE A.M. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Espinosa concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Judge: ¶1 In February 2019, A.M. was adjudicated delinquent and the juvenile court placed him on a twelve-month term of probation. After A.M. admitted committing two counts of threatening and intimidating as alleged in delinquency petitions filed in December 2019, the court again adjudicated A.M. delinquent and found he had violated the terms of his probation. The court ordered that A.M. be committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) for twelve months. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). See also In re Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486 (App. 1989) (juveniles adjudicated delinquent have constitutional right to Anders appeal). Counsel states that, based on her review, “[n]o arguable question of law has been found,” and asks that we review the record for error.1 ¶3 Based on our review of the record, we find no reversible error. The record supports the juvenile court’s findings that A.M.’s admissions were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and that he provided an adequate factual basis to support those admissions. See A.R.S. § 13-1202(A)(1); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 28(C)(7)(a), 32(D)(2). The record also supports the court’s conclusion that A.M. had violated the terms of his probation and establishes the court appropriately exercised its discretion in committing A.M. to ADJC. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e); Ariz. Code of Jud. Admin. § 6-304; In re John G., 191 Ariz. 205, ¶ 8 (App. 1998) (“We will not disturb a juvenile court’s disposition order absent an abuse of discretion.”). 1Counsel also requests that we provide A.M. an opportunity to file a supplemental brief. We deny that request. This court has limited the application of Anders in delinquency appeals to the requirement that we review the record for fundamental error; a minor or guardian is not permitted to file a supplemental brief. In re Cochise Cty. Juv. Action No. DL88-00037, 164 Ariz. 417, 419-20 (App. 1990). 2 IN RE A.M. Decision of the Court ¶4 We affirm the juvenile court’s order adjudicating A.M. delinquent, finding he had violated the terms of his probation, and its disposition committing him to ADJC. 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.
