In Re Landon C. ( 2023 )

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 LANDON C.
No. 1 CA-JV 22-0127
FILED 3-30-2023
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JV603741
The Honorable Janice K. Crawford, Judge, Retired
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Public Advocate’s Office, Mesa
By Colleen Engineer
Counsel for Appellant
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Krista Wood
Counsel for Appellee
IN RE LANDON C.
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the court, in which
Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.
W I L L I A M S, Judge:
¶1 Landon C. appeals his commitment to the Arizona
Department of Juvenile Corrections (“ADJC”) for violating a term of his
probation. Landon’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action
No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484 (App. 1989), advising us there are no
meritorious grounds for reversal. Our obligation is to review the entire
record for reversible error, State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999),
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile
court’s orders and resolving all reasonable inferences against Landon, State
v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). After reviewing the record, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 At twelve years old, Landon drove his grandmother’s vehicle
without permission and crashed it into a wall. He pled guilty to criminal
damage, a class 6 undesignated felony. See A.R.S. § 13-1602. Before his
disposition hearing, the juvenile court ordered Landon to undergo a
psychological evaluation. The results suggested the onset of various mood
disorders, mental health issues, and substance abuse. The evaluator
recommended that Landon be placed in a level one residential treatment
program.
¶3 The juvenile court placed Landon on probation and ordered
that he complete a residential treatment program. He did so and was
successfully discharged to his mother’s care nine months later. But Landon
struggled with his behavior once back at home. He failed to consistently
submit to drug testing or engage in services offered to him. After an
incident where Landon caused damage to his family home and threatened
self-harm, he was admitted to a hospital. At the hospital, Landon was “a
ring leader of a fight and riot” and arrested for assaulting a health-care
worker.
¶4 Things did not improve when Landon returned home. He
tested positive for cocaine and THC; he refused to attend school after
2
IN RE LANDON C.
Decision of the Court
assaulting a staff member; and Landon failed to participate in
substance-abuse treatment.
¶5 The State notified the juvenile court of Landon’s poor
performance on probation. Landon, in turn, admitted to the court that he
violated his probation. Before Landon’s disposition hearing, the court again
ordered a psychological evaluation. The evaluator recommended that
Landon participate in a residential behavioral health program, to include
some level of substance abuse treatment, and suggested that Landon be
seen psychiatrically.
¶6 The juvenile court continued Landon’s probation and, as a
term of probation, ordered that he be detained for ninety days or until a bed
became available at a residential behavioral health facility.
¶7 Within weeks, Landon was placed in a behavioral health
group home. But just two months later, he ran away. Once found, Landon
tested positive for amphetamines and THC. Landon was medically cleared
and then returned to the group home. That night, Landon ran away again.
¶8 A SWAT team conducting a raid of an apartment complex
known for drug-use found Landon days later. The following day, Landon
again admitted to the juvenile court that he violated his probation. The
court ordered Landon detained and to submit to a drug test. Landon tested
positive for THC. And, while in detention, he generated an incident report
for poor behavior.
¶9 The juvenile court held a disposition hearing. The State
recommended that Landon be committed to ADJC. Landon, however,
along with his mother, great-grandmother, neighbor, and guardian ad litem
asked the court to place him at Canyon State Academy (a qualified
residential treatment program). The court followed the State’s
recommendation and ordered that Landon be committed to ADJC for a
minimum of thirty days. The court also designated Landon’s 2019 offense
a felony.
¶10 This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under Article 6,
Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1),
-2101(A)(1), 8-235(A), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court
601(a), (b)(1)(C).1
1 Previously Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103(A).
3
IN RE LANDON C.
Decision of the Court
DISCUSSION
¶11 A review of the record confirms that all proceedings were
conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the
Juvenile Court. Landon knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently admitted
the probation violation alleged against him. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 220(c)(1).
His admission supported the juvenile court’s adjudication, and Landon
provided an adequate factual basis to support that admission. A.R.S.
§§ 8-341(A)(1)(b), (B); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 220(c)(3). Landon was present and
represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. See A.R.S.
§§ 8-307(A), -221(A); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 208(a), 206(a)–(b); see also Ariz. R.P.
Juv. Ct. 208(b) (a virtual appearance is considered a personal appearance).
He was given the opportunity to speak at his disposition hearing. Sufficient
evidence supports the adjudication, and the court imposed a disposition
within its discretion. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e); see also In re Miguel R., 204
Ariz. 328, 332, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).
¶12 Though counsel stated she found no meritorious grounds for
reversal, she informs that Landon believed the juvenile court abused its
discretion by committing him to ADJC. In re John G., 191 Ariz. 205, 207, ¶ 8
(App. 1998). We disagree. The court has broad discretion in determining
the appropriate disposition for delinquent juveniles. See In re Niky R., 203
Ariz. 387, 392, ¶ 21 (App. 2002) (as amended).
¶13 The juvenile court stated several reasons for deciding to place
Landon in ADJC. For example, from the age of nine, Landon has had a
“significant history of substance abuse,” which included experimenting
with methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cocaine. Landon has refused to
participate in substance abuse treatment and resisted drug testing. Landon
is a risk to himself. He is also a risk to the public as evinced by his
underlying offense, his assault on medical staff, and his assault on school
staff. And during his most recent placement, Landon ran away and was
found in an apartment known for drug use.
¶14 The juvenile court found that (1) Landon’s behavioral and
substance-abuse history prevent him from addressing his mental health
concerns, and (2) Landon is at “a very high risk to reoffend” and “is not
likely to be managed at any level other than a structured facility.” Record
evidence supports the court’s findings. The court’s findings also
demonstrate it considered the factors required to commit a juvenile to
ADJC, including protecting the community, rehabilitating the juvenile, the
nature of the offenses, and less restrictive alternatives. See Ariz. Code of Jud.
Admin. § 6-304(C)(1)(a)–(d). On this record, the court did not abuse its
4
IN RE LANDON C.
Decision of the Court
discretion when it committed Landon to ADJC. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e),
-246(B)(2); Ariz. Code of Jud. Admin. § 6-304; In re John G., 191 Ariz. at 207,
¶ 8.
CONCLUSION
¶15 We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
¶16 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Landon’s
representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more
than inform Landon of the outcome of this appeal and his future options,
unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to
the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140
Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 609(b).
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
5