IN RE: D.M.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE D.M. No. 2 CA-JV 2020-0077 Filed September 25, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Pima County No. JV20190652 The Honorable Ken Sanders, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Sarah Michèle Martin, Tucson Counsel for Minor IN RE D.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 Pursuant to a plea agreement, fifteen-year-old D.M. admitted to committing criminal damage. The juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent and placed him on probation for twelve months. At a subsequent restitution hearing, the court ordered that D.M. pay $20,000 in damages to the victim and its insurance company. He appealed the restitution order. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating she has “conscientiously reviewed the entire record on appeal and has been unable to find any arguable question of law that is not frivolous.” See In re Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 485-87 (App. 1989) (affording juveniles adjudicated delinquent Anders-type review on appeal). Consistent with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), counsel has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case, with citations to the record,” and has asked us to search the record for reversible error. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court’s order, see In re J.U., 241 Ariz. 156, ¶ 2 (App. 2016), the evidence presented at the restitution hearing supports the award of $20,000 in damages to the victim and its insurance company. The court’s restitution order is consistent with the plea agreement and is statutorily authorized. See A.R.S. § 8-344(A); see also In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, ¶ 12 (App. 2005) (trial court has broad discretion in setting restitution based on facts of case). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s restitution order. 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.
