Cochise County Juvenile Action No. DL89-00020, Matter of, 2
| Decision Date | 27 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | CA-JV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 161 Ariz. 154,776 P.2d 1080 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Appeal in COCHISE COUNTY JUVENILE ACTION NO. DL89-00020. 89-0020. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
The minor appeals from the order of the juvenile court granting the state's petition to remand to superior court for prosecution as an adult, arguing that he was denied the right to a speedy trial as well as due process by the state's delay in these proceedings. Finding no error, we affirm.
The minor was arrested on February 10, 1989, and charged with possession of marijuana, possession of marijuana for sale, and unlawful transportation of marijuana. On February 14 a delinquency petition and petition for detention were filed in the juvenile court. A detention hearing was held the same day, and the state's petition was granted. The court further ordered that the minor's initial hearing be scheduled "subject to the call of the Court's calendar." On February 21 the juvenile allegedly assaulted a corrections officer and attempted to escape from the juvenile corrections facility. The state filed an amended petition on March 2 adding these charges, and also filed a petition to remand to superior court for criminal prosecution. On March 6 counsel for the minor made an oral motion to accelerate the hearing on speedy trial grounds, which was denied on the ground that March 16 was the earliest date the court could hear the matter. The hearing on both probable cause and transfer was held on March 16 and continued by stipulation to March 20. At the conclusion of this hearing, the juvenile court granted the state's motion. The minor turned 18 on March 23.
The main thrust of the minor's argument is that he was prejudiced by the state's delay in holding his initial hearing. In fact, no initial hearing was ever held, as a consequence of the state's filing the petition to transfer. Ariz.R.P.Juv.Ct. 6(a), 17B A.R.S. provides that "[a]fter the petition has been filed, the child and the parents ... shall be notified to appear before the court." The purpose of this hearing is to advise the minor of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. Rule 6(b) and (d). The rule provides for the permissive waiver of the right to counsel, and for the appointment of counsel for indigent minors. Rule 6(b) and (c). Rule 6 further provides:
(e) If counsel is requested, the court shall recess the hearing and order that counsel be secured for the parties. The court may set the cause for an adjudication hearing or make such other order as it deems proper.
(f) If counsel is waived, the court may proceed by calling upon the child to admit or deny the allegations of the petition. If the allegations are denied, the court shall set the matter for an adjudication hearing; if the allegations are admitted, the court may proceed with the dispositional hearing.
The minor argues that the initial hearing contemplated by Rule 6 is equivalent to an arraignment which, under the criminal rules, must be held within 10 days after the charges have been filed. Ariz.R.Crim.P. 14.1(a), 17 A.R.S. Although acknowledging that no time limits are set forth in Rule 6, the minor argues that the hearing should have been held within a similarly brief period. Because the hearing was not timely held, at which time he would have entered an admission to the original charges, he argues that he was prejudiced in two ways. First, the subsequent offenses would not have occurred; and second, the state would have been precluded from seeking transfer and his disposition would have occurred within the juvenile system.
As to the first point, even assuming that unreasonable delay occurred, the prejudice asserted cannot be attributed to the state. It requires no discussion to conclude that the minor, and not the state, is solely responsible for criminal conduct occurring while he was incarcerated.
We also disagree with the minor's second point. It is well settled that the rules of criminal procedure are inapplicable to juvenile proceedings. Matter of Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-86715, 122 Ariz. 300, 594 P.2d 554 (App.1979). Further, unlike criminal Rule 14.1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeals in Maricopa County Juvenile Actions No. JV119590 and No. JV118201, Matter of
...juvenile rules do not establish hard and fast guidelines for delinquency proceedings...." Matter of Cochise County Juvenile Action No. D.L. 89-00020, 161 Ariz. 154, 156, 776 P.2d 1080, 1082 (App.1989). In the absence of due process and equal protection considerations, the Rules of Criminal ......
-
In re E.M.
...the prejudice to the defendant"), citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972); see also In re Cochise Cnty. Juv. Action No. DL89-00020, 161 Ariz. 154, 156, 776 P.2d 1080, 1082 (App. 1989) (applying Barker analysis to juvenile delinquency proceedings). Any claim that his right to a spee......
-
Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-508488, Matter of
...P.2d 589, 591 (App.1990) (criminal Rule 8 speedy trial provisions do not apply in juvenile DUI case); Cochise County Juv. No. DL89-00020, 161 Ariz. 154, 155, 776 P.2d 1080, 1081 (App.1989) (criminal Rule 14 did not apply to initial hearing held under juvenile Rule 6); Maricopa County Juv. N......