In Re Luis V. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                      NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    IN RE LUIS V.
    No. 1 CA-JV 18-0485
    FILED 5-2-2019
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. JV 601033
    The Honorable David B. Gass, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Maricopa County Public Advocate’s Office, Mesa
    By Colleen Engineer
    Counsel for Appellant
    Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
    By Jeffrey R. Duvendack
    Counsel for Appellee
    IN RE LUIS V.
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.
    C A M P B E L L, Judge:
    ¶1            Luis V. appeals the superior court’s order finding him in
    violation of his probation and the court’s subsequent continuation of his
    probation. Because the superior court did not violate Luis’s right to due
    process, we affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    ¶2             In May 2017, Luis pled guilty to one count of unlawful use of
    means of transportation and was adjudicated delinquent by the Santa Cruz
    County Superior Court. The court ordered a standard probation term of 12
    months and transferred the case to Maricopa County. Luis signed a written
    copy of the conditions of his probation, which included requirements that
    he “tell [his] probation officer of any change of residence, address, and/or
    phone number” and to “not leave the County of Santa Cruz and/or the
    State of Arizona, without written permission” from his probation officer.
    ¶3              Some months later, the probation officer alleged that Luis had
    violated both conditions of his probation by failing to inform the probation
    department of his current address and phone number and by leaving the
    state without written permission. In April 2018, Luis admitted in a plea
    agreement to leaving the state and, following a disposition hearing, the
    court ordered the continuation of his probation. Luis signed another written
    copy of the conditions of his probation, which again included requirements
    to “tell [his] probation officer of any change of residence, address, and/or
    phone number” and not to leave “the County of Maricopa and/or the State
    of Arizona, without written permission from” his probation officer.
    ¶4            Two months later, the probation officer alleged that Luis had
    violated the same two conditions of his probation. Luis denied the
    allegations and the court held a hearing in October 2018. After hearing
    testimony from two juvenile probation officers and Luis, the court found
    the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Luis had violated
    both conditions of his probation. At the disposition hearing, the court
    continued Luis’s probation for a year. Luis appealed.
    2
    IN RE LUIS V.
    Decision of the Court
    DISCUSSION
    ¶5             We review juvenile delinquency adjudications for an abuse of
    discretion, In Re Ryan A., 
    202 Ariz. 19
    , 23, ¶ 16 (App. 2002), and “will uphold
    a trial court’s finding that a probationer has violated probation unless the
    finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” State v.
    Thomas, 
    196 Ariz. 312
    , 313, ¶ 3 (App. 1999). We will not reweigh the
    evidence and we view it in the light most favorable to sustaining the
    adjudication. In re Kyle M., 
    200 Ariz. 447
    , 448-49, ¶ 6 (App. 2001). Questions
    of law are reviewed de novo. In re Amber S., 
    225 Ariz. 364
    , 367, ¶ 6 (App.
    2010).
    ¶6              Luis argues he was deprived of due process under the
    Fourteenth Amendment because he was not provided with a Spanish
    interpreter to explain the conditions of his probation after his probation was
    continued in April 2018. Therefore, he argues, he had no meaningful notice
    of the conditions of his probation. See In re Richard M., 
    196 Ariz. 84
    , 86-87,
    ¶ 11 (App. 1999) (holding that the juvenile court must exercise its
    jurisdiction in accordance with due process standards); Matter of Maricopa
    Cty. Juv. Action No. J-86715, 
    122 Ariz. 300
    , 302 (App. 1979) (“Since a
    delinquent child may be committed to a state institution, it is clear that in
    delinquency proceedings minimal due process guarantees must be
    afforded the juvenile.”). Luis points to his testimony at the October 2018
    adjudication hearing that he reads and speaks “[v]ery little” English. He
    testified that he is in English-as-a-second-language classes at school to learn
    English, could not read the document listing the terms of his probation
    “very well,” and did not understand the document.
    ¶7              During the October 2018 hearing, the court also heard
    testimony from the probation officer who had served as the “probation
    officer . . . of the day” and had met with Luis following the April 2018
    disposition hearing. She confirmed that she reviewed the conditions of
    probation with Luis, that his brother-in-law was also present, that he had
    no questions, and that he signed a copy of those conditions before he left
    the court that day. She also testified that when she meets with Spanish-
    speaking families and can tell that there is a language issue, she always asks
    if they need an interpreter, but that no interpreter was present during her
    meeting with Luis.
    ¶8           The record does not establish that Luis, his counsel, or his
    guardian ad litem asked for or indicated that he needed an interpreter
    before or during the meeting to review his probation conditions with the
    probation officer. Rather, the record indicates that Luis possessed at least
    3
    IN RE LUIS V.
    Decision of the Court
    some understanding of English and had the opportunity to request an
    interpreter but did not do so. Therefore, the superior court did not abuse its
    discretion and did not deprive Luis of due process.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶9            For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    4