Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0281
02-22-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JEFFREY JASON GREWELL, Appellant.
COUNSEL Richard G. Karwaczka, Cochise County Public Defender By Xochitl Orozco, Deputy Public Defender, Bisbee Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County
No. S0200CR201500078
The Honorable John F. Kelliher Jr., Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Richard G. Karwaczka, Cochise County Public Defender
By Xochitl Orozco, Deputy Public Defender, Bisbee
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Espinosa concurred.
ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 Pursuant to a plea agreement in 2015, appellant Jeffrey Grewell was convicted of disorderly conduct and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to a two-year prison term on the disorderly conduct count, and ordered a five-year term of probation on the aggravated assault count, to commence on Grewell's release from prison. In August 2017, the state filed a petition to revoke probation, and after a contested hearing, the court determined Grewell had committed the alleged violations of his probation. In August 2018, the court reinstated Grewell on supervised probation until April 20, 2022, and imposed thirty days of deferred incarceration.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating she has reviewed the record and has found "no arguable question of law that is not frivolous" to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for reversible error. Grewell has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 This court will uphold a trial court's finding that a defendant violated probation unless that finding "is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence." State v. Moore, 125 Ariz. 305, 306 (1980). Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the court's ruling, the evidence was sufficient to support its finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Grewell had violated the terms of his probation. State v. Vaughn, 217 Ariz. 518, n.2 (App. 2008); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 27.8(b)(3). The evidence presented at the violation hearing established that in August 2017, Grewell used methamphetamine and failed to report contact with law enforcement within seventy-two hours, both in violation of the terms of his probation. We further conclude the court appropriately exercised its discretion to continue Grewell on probation. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 27.8(c)(2) (upon determination that violation of condition of probation occurred, court may "revoke, modify, or continue probation").
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. We thus affirm the trial court's finding that Grewell violated his probation and its disposition continuing him on probation.