My office has handled numerous appeals over the years. Some of my published opinions are the following
KATHERINE S. v. FOREMAN, 197 Ariz. 371 (App. 1999) 1 CA-SA 98-0328
This special action challenges the constitutionality of Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (“A.R.S.”) section 8-235, the statute that gives the juvenile court the power to direct and control the behavior of any person whose conduct may be detrimental or harmful to a juvenile who is under the jurisdiction of the court. The petitioner, Katherine S., is the sister of a juvenile who had been adjudicated delinquent. The court entered certain orders directing and controlling Katherine’s conduct, and she objected and filed this special action. We grant relief because the juvenile judge did not secure jurisdiction over Katherine and because he applied the statute in a manner that violated her right to notice, her right to remain silent, and her right to counsel. We further hold that section 8-235(B)(2), the part of the statute that allows the judge to order any person to do or refrain from doing anything that may be harmful or detrimental to a delinquent child or that may tend to defeat the orders of the court regarding a delinquent child or that may assist in or be necessary for the rehabilitation of such child, is unconstitutional because it is too vague to be enforceable. The statute fails to give notice of the acts that it prohibits, and it permits the juvenile judge to criminalize conduct on an ad hoc basis.
MINH T. v. DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, 202 Ariz. 76 (App. 2002) No. 1 CA-JV 01-0078.
This is a parent-child termination case. The father, Tung T., and the mother, Minh T., are accused of murdering one of their daughters. The Arizona Department of Economic Security (“ADES”) petitioned to terminate Minh’s and Tung’s parental rights as to their other children. Because at one point the case plan was to reunify the family, ADES offered family reunification services. Such services would have included involvement in counseling and psychological evaluations. The parents refused to participate because their criminal defense attorneys advised them that they might incriminate themselves. The trial court subsequently granted ADES’s petition, finding that the parents’ refusal to participate in family reunification services constituted a willful refusal to remedy the circumstances that caused the children to be in an out-of-home placement for nine months or more. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 8-533(B)(7)(a) (Supp. 2000).
KENNETH T. v. AZ. DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC., 1 CA-JV 05-0039 (Ariz.App. 2006) 1 CA-JV 05-0039
In this opinion, we examine whether the juvenile court can terminate parental rights by granting a motion for summary judgment. We conclude that it can.
IN RE VICTORIA K., 198 Ariz. 527 (App. 2000) 1 CA-JV 99-0218.
The juvenile, Victoria K., appeals from an adjudication of delinquency for providing false information to a police officer. Because we find that the juvenile court erred in adjudicating the juvenile for an offense that was not charged and was not a lesser-included offense of the crime that was charged, we vacate the adjudication and remand with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal.
IN RE: AARON M., 204 Ariz. 152 (App. 2003) No. 1 CA-JV 02-0029
Aaron M. (“Appellant”), a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent after pleading guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 13-1001 and 13-1507 (2001). At disposition, the court placed Appellant on probation.[fn1] More than eight months later, Appellant’s probation officer requested that the juvenile court hold oral argument to consider whether Appellant should be ordered to submit to deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) testing pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4438 (Supp. 2001). Following oral argument, the court ordered Appellant to submit to DNA testing at the direction of the probation department. Appellant timely appeals this order.
I have also handled many unpublished cases at the trial and appellate levels which have
seriously impacted the lives of my clients or the way in which laws are used in cases:
I handled a defendant’s appeal on the infamous ‘Bounty Hunter’ case from the 1990s.
I have had several people released from prison due to the trial court’s failure to properly advise them of their rights, or to properly find them guilty.
I obtained a reversal on a family law case which established that child support is still owed after a severance/termination of rights, and does not stop until an adoption is granted.
I obtained a reversal on a criminal case in which my client was found guilty and had to pay restitution when in fact, though she admitted to graffiti, it did not cause additional economic damage to the graffiti which already existed on the wall.
I obtained a reversal on a case in which a client was late to trial and I was precluded from presenting defense evidence or from a continuance of the trial.
I have obtained several reversals on termination of parental rights cases in which the parents were not afforded their due process rights and were not properly advised of their right to a jury trial.
I have obtained several dismissals of charges based upon the incompetency of the defendant, and have also had prior convictions resulting from the actions of previous lawyers set aside for such incompetency.