STATE v. GREATHOUSE
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. ) ) JAMES MICHAEL GREATHOUSE, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/05/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls No. 1 CA-CR 11-0642 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR1988-003253 The Honorable Sheila A. Madden, Judge Pro Tem AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, 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 Terry J. Adams, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix D O W N I E, Judge ¶1 James Michael Greathouse timely appeals from the determination that he violated his terms of probation and from the disposition of the probation violation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336, 339, 857 P.2d 388, 391 (App. 1993). Despite being afforded the opportunity to do so, Greathouse did not file a supplemental brief in propria persona. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In June 1989, Greathouse pled guilty to child molestation, a class 2 felony, and attempted child molestation, a class 3 felony. He was sentenced to 22 years imprisonment and lifetime probation. Greathouse was released from prison in July 2010. ¶3 The Adult Probation Department subsequently petitioned to revoke Greathouse s probation. It alleged that he failed to: (1) participate and cooperate in counseling; (2) participate and cooperate with polygraph testing; (3) remain on his intensive probation ( IPS ) schedule; and (4) undergo physiological and psychological testing and group counseling for sex offenders. ¶4 At the ensuing evidentiary hearing, Greathouse s probation officer testified that he directed Greathouse multiple 2 times to complete a sex-offender polygraph, but he failed to do so. The probation officer further testified that Greathouse admitted failing to follow his IPS schedule numerous times. The State also submitted a behavioral report signed by Greathouse admitting he had gone off his IPS schedule. ¶5 and The court found that Greathouse failed to participate cooperate with polygraph testing; remain schedule; and undergo physiological testing. on his IPS It reinstated him to probation, adding a term of four months incarceration in the county jail. Greathouse timely appealed. DISCUSSION ¶6 We have read and considered the brief submitted by Greathouse s counsel and have reviewed the entire record. 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. error. the Leon, We find no fundamental All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed for the probation violation was within the statutory range. Greathouse was present at all critical phases of the proceedings and was represented by counsel. factual and legal basis for concluding that The court had a Greathouse had violated his terms of probation. CONCLUSION ¶7 We affirm the judgment of the superior court. Counsel s obligations pertaining to Greathouse s representation 3 in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing more than inform Greathouse of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission review. days the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). 30 to from On the court s own motion, Greathouse shall have the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge /s/ RANDALL M. HOWE, 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.
