State v. Spratley
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DOUGLAS KEITH SPRATLEY, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 04/29/10 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: JT 1 CA-CR 09-0432 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2007-143788-001 SE The Honorable Sheila A. Madden, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Joel M. Glynn, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix B R O W N, Judge ¶1 Douglas order revoking sentence. Keith his Spratley appeals probation and the the superior related court s disposition Counsel for Spratley filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300-01, 451 P.2d 878, 881-82 (1969). arguable issues to raise, counsel requests search the record for fundamental error. Finding no that this court Spratley was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but did not do so. ¶2 We review the superior court s determination that a defendant violated his probation for an abuse of discretion. See State v. LeMatty, 121 Ariz. 333, 335-36, 590 P.2d 449, 45152 (1979). finding Accordingly, that arbitrary the and evidence. we defendant will only violated unsupported by reverse his any the probation reasonable court s if it theory is of Id. at 336, 590 P.2d at 452 (citation omitted). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶3 In October 2007, unsupervised probation. Spratley was placed on two years Two months later, his probation officer filed a petition to revoke, alleging Spratley violated three conditions of his probation by committing the crime of disorderly conduct, associating with a person having a criminal record, and failing to report contact 2 with law enforcement. Spratley matter denied for the a allegations witness and violation the court hearing. scheduled Prior the to the presentation of evidence at the hearing, Spratley s probation officer submitted a supplemental petition to revoke probation, alleging Spratley violated four additional terms of his probation by possessing or using amphetamine, an illicit drug; consuming alcohol; failing to pay probation fees as ordered; and failing to participate in counseling pertaining to substance abuse as directed. ¶4 The court recognized that Spratley had not been arraigned on the allegations in the supplemental petition and asked him if he wished to proceed or set an additional hearing the following week. Spratley agreed evidentiary hearing on both matters. to proceed with an Evidence was presented showing that Spratley acknowledged receipt of the conditions of his probation and that he had tested positive for drugs, he consumed alcohol, abuse treatment. and he failed court 300, 451 P.2d at 881. in substance has Spratley timely appealed. reviewed the fundamental error and has found none. conducted in At the disposition hearing, the court reinstated probation for two years. This participate The court found that Spratley violated the terms of his probation. ¶5 to entire record for See Leon, 104 Ariz. at The probation revocation proceedings were compliance with the 3 Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, with the exception of the time requirements for making an initial appearance in regard to the allegations in the supplemental Crim. P. 4.1. petition, which Spratley waived. See Ariz. R. Spratley was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at the disposition hearing. His disposition sentence was within the statutory limits. 4 ¶6 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court s judgment finding Spratley in violation of his probation and the resulting disposition. Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Spratley of the status of the appeal and his options. Defense counsel has no further obligations, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). shall have proceed, if thirty he days so from the desires, date with a of pro this per Spratley decision to motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ _________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ______________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Presiding Judge /s/ ______________________________ DONN KESSLER, Judge 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
