In re Richard G.
In re Richard G.
Opinion of the Court
¶ 1 We address but one issue in this appeal: Whether the definitions of “prohibited possessor” in A.R.S. § 13-3101(6)(b) and (d) include a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent for a misdemeanor and placed on probation.
¶ 2 The appeal arises from these undisputed facts. In December 1998, Richard G. was adjudicated delinquent on two class one misdemeanors, misconduct involving a weapon
¶3 The following February, Richard was involved in an altercation at a teen center and was arrested after police found a handgun in the waistband of his pants. The state filed both a petition to revoke probation and
¶ 4 On appeal, Richard contends the definitions of prohibited possessor in § 13-3101(6)(b) and (d) do not “apply to juveniles adjudicated of misdemeanors and to juveniles on probation.” Section 13 — 3101(6)(b) defines prohibited possessor as any person “[w]ho has been convicted within or without this state of a felony or who has been adjudicated delinquent and whose civil right to possess or carry a gun or firearm has not been restored.” The relevant part of § 13-3101(6)(d) defines prohibited possessor as any person “[w]ho is at the time of possession serving a term of probation.”
¶5 Richard first claims the definition of prohibited possessor in § 13-3101(6)(b) is “clearly ambiguous,” arguing that there is nothing “to support the proposition that [its] reference to adjudications means all adjudications instead of felony adjudications.” We disagree.
¶ 6 The primary goal in interpreting a statute is to “ascertain the intent of the legislature.”
¶ 7 In this case, that means giving consideration to the relevant definitions in A.R.S. § 8-201, which defines various terms applicable to the juvenile court. Section 8-201(11) defines “[djelinquent juvenile” as “a child who is adjudicated tó have committed a delinquent act.” The pertinent part of § 8-201(10) defines “[delinquent act” as “an act by a juvenile which if committed by an adult would be a criminal offense or a petty offense, [or] a violation of any law of this state.” Given these two definitions, it is apparent that a juvenile may be adjudicated delinquent for violating any state law, whether the violation is a felony, misdemeanor, or petty offense.
¶8 Our conclusion finds support in the legislative history of § 13-3101(6)(b). Initially, the statute’s definition of prohibited pos
¶ 9 This legislative history confirms that the term “adjudicated delinquent” in § 13-3101(6)(b) covers both felony and misdemeanor adjudications. The legislature’s use of the same term in statutes enacted during the same legislative session “should be construed consistently whenever possible”
¶ 10 It is thus apparent that, when the legislature has wanted to distinguish delinquency adjudications based on any offense from those based only on felonies, it has done so expressly. That it has not done so in § 13-3101(6)(b) reflects its intent to include juveniles adjudicated delinquent for any criminal offense.
¶ 11 Accordingly, we hold that Richard was a prohibited possessor under § 13-3101(6)(b) upon being adjudicated delinquent on two class one misdemeanors in December 1998. We therefore affirm Richard’s subsequent adjudication as a delinquent for possessing a deadly weapon as a prohibited possessor and his commitment to the Department of Juvenile Corrections. In light of our holding, we need not address whether Richard was also a prohibited possessor under § 13-3101(6)(d) based on his probationary status for the two misdemeanors.
. See A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(12). Note: Only authorities or their citations, not text, appear in the footnotes of this decision.
. See A.R.S. § 13-2904(A)(1).
. See § 13-3102(A)(1).
. See § 13-3102(A)(4).
. In re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, 164 Ariz. 25, 33, 790 P.2d 723, 731 (1990).
. See State v. Getz, 189 Ariz. 561, 944 P.2d 503 (1997).
. Mid Kansas Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Dynamic Dev. Corp., 167 Ariz. 122, 128, 804 P.2d 1310, 1316 (1991). See also A.R.S. § 1-213.
. Energy Control Services, Inc. v. Arizona Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 135 Ariz. 20, 22, 658 P.2d 820, 822 (App. 1982).
. See A.R.S. §§ 13-105, 13-601, and 13-602.
. 192 Ariz. 154, ¶5, 962 P.2d 228, ¶5 (App. 1998).
. 1977 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 142, § 94.
. 1994 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 201, § 16.
. Id. at §13.
. Id. at § 14.
. Canon School Dist. No. 50 v. W.E.S. Constr. Co., 177 Ariz. 526, 530, 869 P.2d 500, 504 (1994).
. 1994 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 201, § 18.
. 1997 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 220, §§ 32, 56, and 57.
. See In re Abraham F., 190 Ariz. 359, 947 P.2d 1368 (App. 1997); see also In re John G., 191 Ariz. 205, 953 P.2d 1258 (App. 1998).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.