1 I.

Background

2 Chantry has had two jury trials in this matter. After the first trial, Chantry was
3 convicted only of probation-available offenses, and he was placed on probation by the
4
Court at his sentencing. After the second trial on the remaining charges, a jury returned a
5
guilty verdict on four (4) counts involving a mandatory prison sentence. As a result, at the
6
time of the verdict in the second trial, Chantry’s release conditions were revoked solely
7
on the basis of that verdict.
8
However, on February 2, 2022, the Court of Appeals of Arizona issued its Mandate,
9
reversing all of Chantry’s convictions from the second trial because of numerous legal
10

11 errors that took place during that second trial.

12 Previously, in 2017, the State already sought to hold Chantry non-bondable, and,

13 after a hearing, the Court disagreed. As should be evident in the Court file, on May 5,

14 2017, a hearing was held on the State’s request to hold Chantry non-bondable. The Court

15 concluded that the State failed to meet its burden under the law, and imposed a bond and
16 several release conditions. For ease of reference, the Minute Entry from the May 5, 2017
17
hearing states in relevant part:
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 2
 1 II. Law and Argument

2 As this Court is aware, Rule 7 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure governs
3 release conditions. Review of Chantry’s release conditions is appropriate at this time. “On
4
motion or on its own, a court may reexamine … the conditions of release if the case is
5
transferred to a different court, [or] if a motion alleges the existence of material facts not
6
previously presented to the court[.]” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 7.4(c)(1).
7
“A court’s imposition of a monetary condition of release must be based on an
8
individualized determination of the defendant’s risk of non-appearance, risk of harm to
9
others or the community, and the defendant’s financial circumstances.” Ariz. R. Crim. P.
10

11 7.3(c)(2)(A). Further, “if the court determines a monetary condition is necessary, it must

12 impose the least onerous type of condition in the lowest amount necessary to secure the

13 defendant’s appearance or protect other persons or the community from risk of harm by

14 the defendant.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 7.3(c)(2)(B).

15 This case is unusual because the Court has actual evidence that Chantry does not
16 present a risk of non-appearance. Chantry has never failed to appear for court during the
17
pendency of his first two trials. Further, Chantry attended his verdict during his second
18
trial and was remanded into custody, in the courtroom, without incident. Chantry has
19
proven that he shows up when required by the Court—every time—without exception. He
20
has proven that he is not a risk of non-appearance. Further, the $250,000 bond imposed
21
was sufficient, clearly, to secure his attendance at trial.
22
Additionally, Chantry was (and is) on probation, under the supervision of Yavapai
23

24 County Adult Probation, which adds an additional layer of supervision and confidence for

25

26 3
 1 the Court. Chanty did not violate any of his release conditions or probation terms. He

2 presented no risk of harm to anyone. This Court has actual evidence, based on the fact that
3 Chantry was out on bond and supervised prior to and during his second trial, that Chantry
4
did not present a risk to the community or any person.
5
Lastly, as a matter of fundamental fairness, equity, and due process, it makes sense
6
to reinstate Chantry’s prior release conditions, knowing that they worked exactly as
7
intended in the past, now that the Court of Appeals of Arizona has reversed all convictions
8
stemming from the second trial. To assure the Court that Chantry’s family remains
9
supportive, attached as Exhibit A, and offered in furtherance of this Motion, is a letter
10

11 from Chantry’s father-in-law, Allen Huber.

12 DATED this 18th day of February, 2022.

13 GRIFFEN & STEVENS LAW FIRM, PLLC

14
____________________________________
15 Ryan J. Stevens
16 The foregoing was e-filed this
18th day of February, 2022:
17

18 Yavapai County Superior Court

Division 4
19
And copy to:
20
Yavapai County Attorney’s Office
21 Susan Eazer, Esq.
22 By: /s/ Angelé Mead
23

24

25

26 4