Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Rowland

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Division One

November 19, 2013


Not for Publication See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County No. S1400CR201000095 The Honorable Maria Elena Cruz, Judge

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Terry M. Crist, III Counsel for Appellee

Terri L. Capozzi, Esq., Yuma By Terri L. Capozzi Counsel for Appellant

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.


WINTHROP, Presiding Judge:

¶1 Harland Stanley Rowland ("Appellant") appeals the trial court's decision to revoke his probation and sentence him to incarceration. For the following reasons, we affirm.


¶2 On October 23, 2009, Appellant crashed his car into a brick wall, causing extensive damage. Appellant hurriedly drove from the scene, and after police officers located him and the damaged vehicle at his home, he was taken into custody. Subsequent testing indicated that Appellant's blood alcohol content was .163.

¶3 On April 13, 2011, pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant was found guilty of Count I, endangerment, a class six felony, and Count II, driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI), a class one misdemeanor. On May 12, 2011, the trial court suspended sentencing and placed Appellant on thirty-six months' supervised probation. Appellant also received and signed a copy of the Uniform Conditions of Supervised Probation. Condition twelve of those conditions provided: "I will not possess or use illegal drugs or controlled substances and will submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed by the [Adult Probation Department]." Thus, Appellant's probation required that, as a condition of his probation, he submit to urinalysis testing. Appellant was further advised and acknowledged that if he violated any of the conditions of his probation, his probation could be revoked and he could be sentenced to prison.

¶4 Appellant nevertheless violated condition twelve on several occasions, including twice testing positive for methamphetamine and once having a blood alcohol content of .047. He also failed to submit a required sample for urinalysis at the Treatment Assessment Screening Center ("TASC") in October 2012. On January 5, 2013, he again failed to submit a urine sample, and his probation officer subsequently filed a petition to revoke his probation, alleging he had violated condition twelve of his probation. Appellant denied the allegation in the petition, and the court scheduled a probation violation hearing for February 8, 2013.

¶5 At the probation violation hearing, Appellant and his probation officer testified that the terms of Appellant's probation required him to submit a urine sample to TASC once or twice a month as directed. The probation officer testified that, according to information provided by TASC, Appellant had called the TASC call-in line at 5:01 a.m. on Saturday, January 5, 2013, and was directed to provide a sample that day. Appellant reportedly arrived at TASC at approximately 10:25 a.m., and he tried but failed to provide urine samples at 11:25 and 11:55 a.m. Although TASC customarily allows individuals three attempts to produce urine, Appellant was not afforded a third opportunity because TASC closed at 12:00 p.m. that day. Appellant claimed that, after he failed to supply a urine sample on January 5, he tried calling his probation officer that day and left her a message explaining the situation. His probation officer testified, however, that she received no message from Appellant that day and had no contact with Appellant from January 5 until the February 8 hearing.

¶6 Appellant testified that he suffers from several medical conditions and takes numerous drugs for those conditions, including "water pills."[2] Appellant claimed he had been ill in the days before January 5 and had stopped taking the water pills, which he believed caused him to become dehydrated and limited his ability to produce urine. He maintained that, due to his illness and changes in his use of medications, he was unable to urinate at TASC.

¶7 On cross-examination, however, Appellant admitted that, with the exception of one drug that had been added a few months before January 5, he had been taking the same medications for the entirety of his probation. He further acknowledged that, during that twenty-month period, he had only once previously claimed difficulty urinating - in October 2012, due to illness. On that occasion, he immediately contacted his probation officer, and he was ordered to serve ten days in jail for that ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.