State v. Crim
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. RANDY WAYNE CRIM, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 08-03-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN 1 CA-CR 09-0957 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-101638-001 SE The Honorable James R. Morrow, 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 Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Christopher V. Johns, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Randy Wayne Crim Appellant Florence B R O W N, Judge ¶1 Randy Wayne Crim appeals the superior court s order revoking his imprisonment. probation and the related disposition of Counsel for Crim 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. that Finding no this court Crim was granted the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and has done so. ¶2 We review the superior court s determination that a defendant has violated probation for an abuse of discretion. See State v. LeMatty, 121 Ariz. 333, 335-36, 590 P.2d 449, 45152 (1979). Accordingly, we will reverse only if the court s finding is arbitrary and unsupported by any reasonable theory of evidence. Id. at 336, 590 P.2d at 452 (citation omitted). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶3 In supervised June probation aggravated assault. filed a 2009, petition as Crim a was result placed of on his three conviction years for Three months later, his probation officer to revoke, conditions of his probation. alleging Crim violated ten The alleged violations included the consumption of alcohol and failures to report as directed, obtain an approved residence and 2 employment, attend required counseling, and pay probation fees. and the court scheduled the Crim denied the allegations matter for a witness violation hearing. ¶4 that At the hearing, the State presented evidence showing Crim acknowledged probation. receipt of the conditions of his reported The State also presented evidence that Crim had not as required, he was not living at an approved residence, and he had consumed alcohol. The court ruled that Crim probation violated detailed these findings dismissed the of three terms fact remaining as of to his each allegations violation. for lack and issued The of court evidence. Although Crim attempted to explain the violations he committed, he did not refute that he had in fact violated the terms of his probation. ¶5 At the conclusion of the witness violation hearing, Crim waived his right to a separate disposition hearing and the court sentenced him to three and one-half years in prison and to a term of community service equal to one-seventh of the prison term. Crim timely appealed. ¶6 In his supplemental brief, titled Petition for Resentencing, Crim requests that we modify his sentence to a term of three prison term. years of supervised probation in lieu of his Crim asserts that he did not clearly understand at the time of his hearing that reinstatement of his supervised 3 probation was an option. secure employment and housing more of reduced excessive. on appeal and a unless should of discretion court probation, capable A sentencing decision, however, is within the sound or his be released. trial of would with the terms and complying revised the He suggests that he could find more sentence it [is] he will be not clearly . be . . Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881 (citations omitted); see also State v. Stanley, 123 Ariz. 95, 107, 597 P.2d 998, 1010 (App. 1979) ( [S]entencing is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a sentence will be upheld if it is within the statutory limits, unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. ). We find that Crim s sentence is within the statutory limits prescribed for his offense and we do not find it to be clearly excessive. ¶7 This court has reviewed the fundamental error and has found none. 300, 451 P.2d at 881. conducted in entire record for See Leon, 104 Ariz. at The probation revocation proceedings were compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Crim was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and sentencing. was given the opportunity to speak prior to Accordingly, we affirm the trial court s judgment finding Crim in violation of his probation and the resulting disposition. 4 ¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Crim 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. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 156-57 (1984). Crim shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ _________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ______________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge /s/ ______________________________ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, 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.
