State v. Martin, 1
| Decision Date | 31 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 829 P.2d 349,171 Ariz. 159 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Derick Joseph MARTIN, Appellant. 90-1803. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Grant Woods, Atty. Gen. by Paul J. McMurdie, Chief Counsel, Crim. Div., and Diana P. Stabler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Dean W. Trebesch, Maricopa County Public Defender by James R. Rummage and Carol A. Carrigan, Deputy Public Defenders, Phoenix, for appellant.
Derick Joseph Martin (defendant) appeals from the revocation of his probation and from the sentence imposed.
Martin pled guilty to attempted molestation of a child, a dangerous crime against children in the second degree. He was placed on lifetime probation. The state filed a petition to revoke probation alleging violations of terms 1, 4 and 20 of the conditions of Martin's probation. 1 A mental examination was performed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Martin was found competent.
At a revocation hearing, Martin denied the alleged violations. At the violation hearing, Martin and his probation officer, Sandra Lewis-George (Lewis-George) testified. Later, at a disposition hearing, the trial court found Martin in violation of terms 1 and 20, and dismissed term 4. The trial court revoked his probation without specifying each violation separately and sentenced him to the mitigated term of 8 years. The trial court identified Martin's diminished mental capacity as a mitigating factor. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by finding him in violation of term 20 of his probation. Term 20 reads as follows:
Have no contact with children under the age of eighteen years without specific written permission of the supervising probation officer.
To revoke probation, the state must establish the probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz.R.Crim.P.R. 27.7.b(3); State v. Baylis, 27 Ariz.App. 222, 223, 553 P.2d 675, 676 (1976). At this violation hearing, Lewis-George testified that Martin related that his brother, girlfriend and two children under the age of 18 came over to his foster home for Sunday dinner. She admitted that Martin's foster mother was present at all times and that Martin was never alone with the children. Martin testified that he was in and out of the house doing domestic chores for his mother on that Sunday night. He stated that he could have gone to his room but chose not to. He stated that there was always an adult present when he was in a room with the children. This testimony is uncontradicted. There is no evidence of any physical or even verbal contact by Martin with these children nor of any setting conducive to improper behavior.
We find this evidence insufficient to support a violation of term 20 as phrased in the probation document. In this context, the word "contact" is so vague as to fail to provide Martin with notice about what kind of group association is prohibited. While the term understandably intends to prohibit potential sexual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kessler
...the retreat. We reject each of these arguments. A. Overbreadth ¶ 13 Relying primarily on this Court's opinion in State v. Martin, 171 Ariz. 159, 829 P.2d 349 (App.1992), Kessler argues that Regulation Number 1 and the Definitions are unenforceable because they improperly "regulate or burden......
-
Norton v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
...829 P.2d 345 ... 171 Ariz. 155 ... Robert Paul NORTON, Petitioner, ... SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, In and For the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, a judge thereof, ... No. 1 CA-SA 91-044 ... Court of Appeals of Arizona, ... Division 1, Department C ... March 31, 1992 ... ...
-
State v. Nash
...how the conditions might be overbroad and vague without context or any factual bases.¶18 Nash's case more closely resembles State v. Martin, 171 Ariz. 159 (App. 1992). Martin's probation was revoked and he appealed allegingthe superior court erred by finding he violated his condition of pro......
-
State v. Maggio, 1 CA-CR 99-0406.
...are in a private area and a child comes in, you must leave immediately. ¶ 6 The Defendant, relying on our opinion in State v. Martin, 171 Ariz. 159, 829 P.2d 349 (App.1992), argues that in the context of this case the condition of probation that he not have contact with minors is so vague a......