Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department C
Not for Publication -103(G) Ariz.R.P. Juv. Ct.; Rule 28 ARCAP
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JV549877 The Honorable Kirby D. Kongable, Commissioner
Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section And Robert A. Walsh, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee.
Bruce F. Peterson, Maricopa County Legal Defender Mesa By Suzanne W. Sanchez, Deputy Legal Defender Attorneys for Appellant.
PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge
¶1 Brandon S. (Juvenile) appeals the juvenile court's order requiring him to register as a sex offender until the age of twenty-five pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) Section 13-3821.D. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In 2010, the juvenile court adjudicated Juvenile delinquent of attempted molestation of a child, a class three felony and a misdemeanor charge of assault. In February 2011, the juvenile court placed Juvenile on probation and ordered that he remain under the protective custody of a probation officer, and in the physical custody of A New Leaf, a treatment center. The court deferred its decision whether to require Juvenile to register as a sex offender.
¶3 Juvenile failed to complete the treatment program at A New Leaf. As a result, in June 2011, the juvenile court found Juvenile violated his probation, committed him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) and, again, deferred the issue of Juvenile's sex offender registration. ADJC released Juvenile from custody in November 2011 and, at that time, the juvenile court again deferred a decision on sex offender registration to see how Juvenile would perform once back in the community.
¶4 At an April 2013 status hearing, Juvenile's probation officer testified that a recent report from an agency called "Resolution Group" indicated Juvenile was not fully invested in his rehabilitation and was "unable to internalize much of the treatment." Moreover, the probation officer said Juvenile was highly sexual and possessed highly distorted perceptions that his "girlfriends" caused him to sexually offend. Citing community safety concerns, the probation officer recommended that Juvenile be ordered to register as a sex offender.
¶5 The State also supported requiring registration because the Juvenile was not invested in his rehabilitation. The State based its argument on the fact that Juvenile willfully violated the terms of his probation by engaging in sexual relationships, only showed investment in the rehabilitation program the three weeks leading up to the hearing, had a history of not showing up to treatment sessions, and was deceptive when asked why he did not attend treatment.
¶6 Juvenile opposed registration and, in the alternative, asked the juvenile court to defer the decision. After reviewing all reports and considering the arguments provided, the juvenile court ordered Juvenile to register as sex offender, finding Juvenile "has not really yet come to grips with the things he needs to . . . self-regulate and provide some self-assurance of safety to the community."
¶7 Juvenile timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-235.A and Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103. See also In re Javier B. , 230 Ariz. 100, 102, 280 P.3d 644, 646 (App. 2012) ("[B]oth the disposition order and a later order requiring sex offender ...