State v. Gerrie
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.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant, v. JONATHON ROBERT GERRIE, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/14/10 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-CR 09-0706 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 1999-008755 The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED William Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Lisa Marie Martin, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Maricopa County Public Defender By Spencer D. Heffel, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix I R V I N E, Judge ¶1 The State appeals from the trial court s order modifying Jonathon Robert Gerrie ( Jonathon ) s probation from a life term to five years pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.3 and State v. Peek, 219 Ariz. 182, 195 P.3d 641 (2008). 1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The State charged Jonathon with four counts of sexual offenses committed against his minor sister between June 1 and July 31, 1997. Jonathon pled attempted child molestation guilty (Count to 1) amended and counts attempted of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen (Count 4), both Class 3 felonies and an attempted DCAC. The court imposed lifetime probation on each count, beginning March 3, 2000. ¶3 Sometime in 2009, the Adult Probation Office ( APO ) began filing probationers petitions whose to modify attempted DCAC or discharge crimes probation occurred during for the Peek timeframe. In May 2009, the court notified the parties that APO filed a petition to discharge 1 Jonathon s probation. The In Peek, 219 Ariz. at 182, ¶ 1, 195 P.3d at 641, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a defendant could not be sentenced to lifetime probation for second-degree Dangerous Crimes Against Children ( attempted DCAC ) committed between January 1, 1994, and July 20, 1997 ( Peek timeframe ). It reasoned that before 1994, lifetime probation for attempted DCAC was available under A.R.S. § 13-604.01(I). Id. at 183, ¶ 8, 195 P.3d at 642. The legislature deleted § 13-604.01 in 1994, and supplanted it with A.R.S. § 13-902(E), which did not apply to attempted DCAC. Id. Effective July 21, 1997, the legislature reinserted language in A.R.S. § 13-902(E) that reinstated lifetime probation for attempted DCAC. During the Peek timeframe, five years was the maximum term of probation permitted for attempted DCAC. 2 State responded, objecting to modification. Jonathon filed a memorandum in support of termination. ¶4 At a consolidated hearing on July 21, 2009, the trial court heard arguments on this and several other Peek cases. It decided to examine the factual bases of each case individually and gave the State an opportunity to pinpoint more precisely the dates of the offenses. When given an opportunity to do so at a hearing September evidence additional on to 2, 2009, narrow the State the dates. The presented trial no court reasoned that the rule of lenity required it to assume that the offenses were committed within the Peek time frame and modified Jonathon s probation to a term of five years on Count 4. It ordered APO to calculate whether Jonathon has completed that term and to submit an Order of Discharge, if warranted. ¶5 The State timely appeals from modification of probation on Count 4. 2 We exercise special action jurisdiction because remedy the by State way of has no appeal, equally and it plain, raises speedy an and issue adequate of first impression involving purely legal questions of public importance that are pending in other cases or likely to recur. See Jackson v. Schneider, 207 Ariz. 325, 327, ¶ 5, 86 P.3d 381, 383 (App. 2004); State v. Dean, 1 CA-CR 09-0705 (Ariz. App. Dec. 9, 2010). 2 The record does not show that Count 1 was ever modified before it was discharged on October 20, 2010. The State, however, has not appealed from that order. 3 DISCUSSION ¶6 The probation was State incorrectly terminated early. asserts The record that shows Jonathon s that his probation was modified pursuant to Rule 27.3. Therefore, the facts and issues presented here are virtually identical to those this Court addressed in Dean, 1 CA-CR 09-0705 (Ariz. App. Dec. 9, 2010). We find no reason to depart from our holding in Dean. CONCLUSION ¶7 We affirm modification of Jonathon s probation. /s/ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge /s/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge 4
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.
