In Re Delinquency of J.C. ( 2023 )


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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 DELINQUENCY OF J.C.
    No. 1 CA-JV 23-0144
    FILED 12-21-2023
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. JV207894
    The Honorable Genene Dyer, Judge Pro Tempore
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney at Law, Phoenix
    By Robert D. Rosanelli
    Counsel for Appellant
    Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
    By Christine A. Davis
    Counsel for Appellee
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.
    IN RE DELINQUENCY OF J.C.
    Decision of the Court
    C A T T A N I, Judge:
    ¶1             J.C. appeals the juvenile court’s order requiring him to
    register as a sex offender until age 25. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    ¶2            In June 2022, after J.C. pleaded delinquent to two counts of
    child molestation, the juvenile court committed him to the Arizona
    Department of Juvenile Corrections (“ADJC”). The court deferred a
    decision on whether to require sex-offender registration. In July 2023, after
    considering evidence and oral argument regarding registration, the court
    ordered J.C. to register as a sex offender. J.C. timely appealed, and we have
    jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 8-235.
    DISCUSSION
    ¶3             The juvenile court may require a juvenile who has been found
    delinquent of certain offenses, including child molestation, to register as a
    sex offender until age 25. A.R.S. § 13-3821(A)(7), (D). We review a court’s
    order requiring registration for an abuse of discretion, and in making that
    determination, we view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining
    the ruling. See In re Javier B., 
    230 Ariz. 100
    , 104, ¶ 17 (App. 2012); In re Amber
    S., 
    225 Ariz. 364
    , 366–67, ¶ 6 (App. 2010). An abuse of discretion may be
    established if the court’s order is “characterized by capriciousness,
    arbitrariness or by failure to conduct an adequate investigation into facts
    necessary for an intelligent exercise of the court’s sentencing power.” State
    v. Grier, 
    146 Ariz. 511
    , 515 (1985).
    ¶4           Here, J.C. contends that the court abused its discretion by
    ordering registration, asserting that there was insufficient evidence
    demonstrating that he is a danger to society or that the public would be
    protected by registration. We disagree.
    ¶5            In April 2022, J.C. completed a psychosexual evaluation with
    Dr. Mogrovejo. Dr. Mogrovejo’s report indicated that J.C. showed no
    intention to change, had not cooperated with Sexual Maladaptive
    Behavioral Treatment, showed little remorse for his actions, and blamed his
    victims for his conduct. Dr. Mogrovejo recommended inpatient treatment,
    and she concluded that J.C. was a risk to society.
    ¶6           In March 2023, ADJC’s treatment update indicated that J.C.
    had been “reluctant to work on his deviant sexual arousal and minimize[d]
    2
    IN RE DELINQUENCY OF J.C.
    Decision of the Court
    his offense,” “struggle[d] completing his stages of accomplishment
    workbooks,” and “appear[ed] fearful to take responsibility for his offense.”
    ¶7            In May 2023, Dr. Leclerc completed a second psychosexual
    evaluation, noting that J.C. was not further along in treatment and was
    unlikely to make substantial progress before being released from ADJC in
    July. Dr. Leclerc recommended that J.C. be required to register and stated
    that, regardless of registration status, J.C. should continue treatment to
    “address his inappropriate sexual interest in females ages 6 to 13, his
    cognitive distortions supportive of sexually abusive behavior, and to
    develop an adequate relapse prevention plan.”
    ¶8            In June, J.C.’s probation officer reported that ADJC’s records
    indicated J.C. had been mostly compliant during the treatment process,
    with three rules violations between May and June: two for refusing to
    attend or participate in a required treatment program, and one for his room
    not being inspection ready.
    ¶9             Based on this evidence, and after hearing argument from
    counsel, the juvenile court ordered sex-offender registration, expressing
    concern about (1) J.C.’s significant regression in treatment, (2) reports
    indicating J.C.’s “lack of effort” toward treatment, (3) psychosexual
    evaluations noting J.C.’s sexually abusive behavior and lack of
    accountability, and (4) testing results suggesting J.C. was still attracted to
    young children. Citing public safety concerns and the lack of a relapse
    prevention program, the court ordered registration until age 25 based on
    “the totality of the circumstances.”
    ¶10          J.C. contends that the court improperly relied on an
    “outdated,” pre-treatment opinion—Dr. Leclerc’s May 2023 psychosexual
    evaluation concerning J.C.’s risk to re-offend—and ignored J.C.’s more
    recent treatment history showing substantial compliance with treatment as
    he neared his July 2023 release. But the May 2023 evaluation was only
    months before his release and was clearly relevant to the “totality of the
    circumstances.”
    ¶11           Moreover, the juvenile court relied on more than just Dr.
    Leclerc’s evaluation. The court reviewed and considered J.C.’s treatment
    records covering more than a year, psychiatric progress notes,
    psychological reports, and intake assessments. There was sufficient
    evidence in the record to support the court’s decision to order registration.
    ¶12        Finally, J.C. asserts the court ordered registration without
    knowing anything about future treatment, and that the court based its
    3
    IN RE DELINQUENCY OF J.C.
    Decision of the Court
    decision on unsound reasoning and an inadequate investigation. But the
    court considered J.C.’s future treatment plans, voicing a concern about J.C.’s
    “lack of [a] relapse [prevention] plan.” And, as detailed above, the overall
    record reflects a detailed investigation into J.C.’s mental health, as well as
    his treatment records.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶13           The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering
    sex-offender registration until age 25. We affirm.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-SA 23-0144

Filed Date: 12/21/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2023