Cited by

Action No. JV-117258, (applying Anders procedure to juvenile delinquency proceedings).

Action No. JV-117258, (applying Anders procedure to juvenile delinquency proceedings).

Action No. JV-117258, certifying that she found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous after a diligent search of the record.

IN RE MIGUEL T. Decision of the Court T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258

Action No. JV-117258, from a disposition committing her to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (“ADJC”).

Emma’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, advising this court that after a diligent search of the record, counsel has found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.

Action No. JV-117258, after pleading delinquent to one count of shoplifting, a class one misdemeanor.

See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; In re JV-117258, -88 (App. 1989).

Castulo’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, certifying that after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.

Action No. JV-117258, -88 (App. 1989).

Action No. JV-117258, stating she has searched the record on appeal and has found no arguable question of law.

Juvenile’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, -87 (App. 1989), stating that she has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous.

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable, non- frivolous question of law, the Juvenile’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, asking this court to search the record for fundamental error.

Tyler’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.

T H U M M A, Judge: IN RE BRADY D. Decision of the Court ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258

IN RE DAVID E. Decision of the Court T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258

¶2 Juvenile’s appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258

Action No. JV-117258, -87, -38 (App. 1989), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review the record for reversible error.

IN RE REID B. Decision of the Court J O N E S, Judge: ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, -87, -38 (App. 1989).

Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action Number JV–117258, –87, –38 (App. 1989), avowing she has searched the record and found no ground for appeal.

Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258

Pursuant to Anders and Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, , we have searched the record before us and have found no fundamental error.