IN RE M.S. (pdf)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE M.S. No. 2 CA-JV 2021-0147 Filed March 16, 2022 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Graham County No. JV201600064 The Honorable Travis W. Ragland, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL E.M. Hale Law, Lakeside By Elizabeth M. Hale Counsel for Minor IN RE M.S. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Staring and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. E P P I C H, Presiding Judge: ¶1 M.S., born May 2004, appeals from the juvenile court’s order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) after he admitted an allegation of disorderly conduct with a weapon. We affirm. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486 (App. 1989) (applying Anders procedure to juvenile delinquency matters), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no “arguable legal issues to raise on appeal.” Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. ¶3 M.S. was adjudicated delinquent in 2016 after admitting to disorderly conduct allegations in two petitions. The juvenile court placed M.S. on a six-month term of probation, imposing various conditions of probation. M.S. was subsequently found to be in violation of the terms of his probation in regard to twelve petitions to revoke probation. In 2018, jurisdiction of the matter was transferred to Pinal County. In September 2021, the current delinquency proceeding was initiated in Graham County, and M.S. admitted to an allegation of disorderly conduct with a weapon. The court ordered him committed to ADJC “for a minimum 30 day stay.” ¶4 The record supports the juvenile court’s findings that M.S.’s admission was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and that the factual basis was adequate to support it. See Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 28(C); A.R.S. § 13-2904(A)(6). And the record establishes the court appropriately exercised its discretion in ordering M.S. committed to ADJC. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e); 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.”). 2 IN RE M.S. Decision of the Court ¶5 Consistent with Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, the juvenile court’s delinquency adjudication and disposition 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.
