STATE v. FORT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. GENE WILSON FORT, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 15-0353 FILED 4-5-2016 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2000-002632 The Honorable J. Justin McGuire, Commissioner AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Louise Stark Counsel for Appellant STATE v. FORT Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined. T H O M P S O N, Presiding Judge: ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Gene Wilson Fort (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. ¶2 In 2000, defendant pled guilty to two counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor, both dangerous crimes against children and class 3 felonies. On one count, the court sentenced defendant to ten years of imprisonment. On the second count, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentencing and placed defendant on lifetime probation. ¶3 In 2015, defendant informed his probation officer that he had given A.P. and A.P.’s family over $60,000 in the previous months. A.P. was also on probation. A.P. was married with a four-year old son and eightyear old daughter (the children). Defendant had interacted with the children by talking to them, and by hugging and holding them. A text message between defendant and A.P. indicated that defendant knew about A.P.’s probation. ¶4 The state petitioned for revocation of defendant’s probation and charged him with violating several terms of his probation. The trial court found defendant guilty of violating terms 6 (knowingly associating with any person having a criminal record) and 17f-1 (contact with any child under the age of 18) of his probation. The court suspended the imposition of sentencing and reinstated defendant on lifetime probation. The court ordered defendant to serve one year in jail as a condition of his probation. ¶5 We have read and considered defendant’s Anders brief, and we have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were 2 STATE v. FORT Decision of the Court conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant’s counsel’s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶6 We affirm the imposition of probation. : ama 3
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.
