In Re Delinquency of E.L.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 E.L.

No. 1 CA-JV 25-0086
FILED 01-21-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JV210647
The Honorable Michele Lawson, Judge, Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Office of the Public Advocate, Phoenix
By A. Jason Max
Counsel for Appellant

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Philip D. Garrow
Counsel for Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

P A T O N, Judge:
 IN RE DELINQUENCY OF E.L.
Decision of the Court

¶1 E.L. appeals his commitment to the Arizona Department of
Juvenile Corrections (“ADJC”) for violating a term of his probation. After
reviewing the entire record, his counsel found “no arguable issues for an
appeal” and requested we review the record for reversable error under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No.
JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484 (App. 1989) (applying Anders procedure to juvenile
delinquency proceedings). We gave E.L. an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief, but he did not do so. After reviewing the record, we
find no error and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 E.L., born in April 2007, is 18 years old. In September 2024,
he was arrested for possession of narcotics and paraphernalia and taken to
juvenile detention. He was released the following day, and about two
weeks later he ran away from home.

¶3 In December 2024, E.L., who still had not returned home,
failed to appear at the advisory hearing. The superior court issued a bench
warrant for his arrest. Later that month, E.L. called his mother and asked
her to pick him up in California. She brought him home and contacted his
probation officer because of his outstanding warrant.

¶4 E.L. was arrested and transported to the juvenile detention
center on December 31, 2024. The superior court held an advisory hearing
that same day. The court ordered that E.L. remain detained. It also ordered
E.L. to undergo a psychological evaluation.

¶5 E.L.’s psychological evaluation recommended he be placed in
a secure, inpatient facility that could address his significant substance abuse
issues and stabilize his mood. The evaluator noted E.L. was a “high risk for
danger to himself” and needs “intense treatment for a substance use
disorder, mood, as well as an eating disorder.” The evaluator also observed
that a “major hurdle is that he will be age 18 within a few months” and
“with community-based interventions [he is] likely to be unsuccessful.”

¶6 On January 21, 2025, the superior court held a change of plea
hearing. E.L. pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6
undesignated felony. See A.R.S. § 13-3415. The court set a disposition
hearing, which it deferred twice due to problems finding E.L. an
appropriate placement.

¶7 On March 17, 2025, the superior court held the continued
disposition hearing. The court ordered E.L. be placed on standard

2
 IN RE DELINQUENCY OF E.L.
Decision of the Court

probation for one year and Juvenile Electronic Tracking System (“JETS”) for
45 days. The court also ordered the Department of Child Safety to take
custody of E.L. and determine an appropriate placement for him.

¶8 On April 16, 2025, E.L. violated his probation by cutting off
his JETS monitor and leaving the group home without permission. Two
days later, the group home staff found him hiding in a bed in the facility
after he broke through a bedroom window. They contacted the police, who
arrested E.L., and took him to the juvenile detention center.

¶9 On April 19, 2025, the superior court held an advisory
hearing, and E.L. admitted to violating his probation. The probation
department had contacted the group home staff the day before to inquire
about E.L. returning to the group home. A group home representative told
probation that E.L. “would not be able to [return] to the group home
because he presented a significant risk to himself, the other youths, and
staff.” E.L. remained in detention following the hearing.

¶10 On April 29, 2025, the superior court held a disposition
hearing on E.L.’s probation violation. Probation expressed concern that
because E.L. would soon be 18, any treatment facility other than ADJC
would not be a secure placement because he could sign himself in or out of
the facility. The State and probation thus recommended E.L. be committed
to ADJC for no less than 30 days. E.L. asked the court to defer disposition
because his behavioral health team was seeking alternative placements to
ADJC. His team identified Purpose Healing Center as a possible secure
treatment center. The court deferred disposition, concluding it had two
options: ADJC or the Purpose Healing Center. The court also emphasized
that it considered “a secure placement” as “very important.”

¶11 The superior court held the continued disposition hearing on
May 19, 2025. The probation department informed the court that the
Purpose Healing Center declined to admit E.L. into its program because of
his eating disorder. It reported there were no other placements willing to
accept E.L. at that time. E.L.’s guardian ad litem agreed with the probation
department’s recommendation to ADJC, saying E.L. needs inpatient
treatment and there were no alternatives to ADJC. E.L.’s high-needs case
manager also reported he could not locate any secure treatment centers.

¶12 E.L. objected to commitment to ADJC, arguing commitment
was inappropriate under the Arizona Supreme Court’s Commitment
Guidelines (“Commitment Guidelines”) because of the nature of his
offense. See Ariz. Code of Jud. Admin. § 6-304(C)(1). He also distinguished

3
 IN RE DELINQUENCY OF E.L.
Decision of the Court

his facts from our precedent in In re Niky R. because he was not a chronic
delinquent offender. 203 Ariz. 387, 392, ¶ 23 (App. 2002). He requested the
court place him on juvenile intensive probation with electronic monitoring.

¶13 The superior court found that without treatment E.L.
presented a risk to the community and a “substantial risk to [his] own
safety.” The court stated that he needed to be in a secure placement. It also
found there were no less restrictive alternatives to ADJC. The court
therefore designated his adjudication for possession of drug paraphernalia
as a class 6 felony and committed him to ADJC for a minimum of 30 days.

¶14 E.L. timely appealed. Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 603(a)(1)(A). We
have jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 8-235(A) and
12-120.21(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶15 Our review of the record confirms that all proceedings were
conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the
Juvenile Court. E.L. knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently admitted to
the probation violation. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 220(c)(1). He was present
and represented by counsel at all hearings. See A.R.S. §§ 8-307(A), -221(A);
Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 206(a), 208(a). He was given the opportunity to speak at
his disposition hearing. And the court imposed a disposition within its
discretion. See A.R.S. § 8-341(A)(1)(e).

¶16 The superior court’s disposition order also expressly stated its
reasons for committing E.L. to ADJC. The court found, after considering
the statutory factors:

The juvenile has untreated substance use that presents a risk
to the juvenile and the community.

While on probation, the juvenile removed an electronic
monitoring device and left placement.

Further rehabilitation requires a more secure facility, and
there is no least restrictive alternative.

The court’s written findings demonstrate it considered the Commitment
Guidelines, including protecting the community, rehabilitating the
juvenile, the nature of the offense, and less restrictive alternatives. See Ariz.
Code of Jud. Admin. § 6-304(C)(1). Although the court must consider these
Commitment Guidelines, it can deviate from them when circumstances

4
 IN RE DELINQUENCY OF E.L.
Decision of the Court

warrant. In re Niky R., 203 Ariz. at 390, ¶¶ 12-13; In re Melissa K., 197 Ariz.
491, 495, ¶ 14 (App. 2000) (“A juvenile court is not required to follow the
guidelines, but it must consider them in making disposition.”).

¶17 On this record, the court did not abuse its discretion when it
committed E.L. to ADJC. In re John G., 191 Ariz. 205, 207, ¶ 8 (App. 1998)
(noting abuse of discretion standard for review of disposition orders).

CONCLUSION

¶18 We affirm. The filing of this decision ends E.L.’s counsel’s
obligation to represent E.L. in this appeal. Counsel need only inform E.L.
of the outcome of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel finds an
issue meriting a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State
v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 609.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5