Michael K Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

R. Montoya, Deputy
4/4/2017 5:40:48 PM
Filing ID 8226459

MARK BRNOVICH
1 Attorney General
Firm Bar No. 14000
2
ADAM J SCHWARTZ
3 AZ State Bar #028969
Assistant Attorney General
4 1275 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926
5 Telephone: 602-542-3881
crmfraud@azag.gov
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
9
10 STATE OF ARIZONA, No. CR2017-001440-001 DT
11 Plaintiff,
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION
12 vs. TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF
RELEASE
13 CRAIG ALLEN SCHERF,
14 Defendant. (Honorable Barbara Spencer)
15
16
17 The State of Arizona opposes the modification of Defendants release conditions and

18 requests that the Court either affirms or increases the $20,000 cash bond currently in place. This
19 court must take into account the nature and circumstances of the offense based upon available
20
information and the weight of the evidence in determining a modification of release pursuant to
21
the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. 13-3967. This response is supported by the attached
22
Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
23
24 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

25 I. FACTS

26 The Defendant has been charged with fraudulent schemes and artifices, theft, unlawful
1 of 2
 practice of medicine, illegally conducting an enterprise, taking the identity of another, and
1
2 endangerment for misrepresenting himself as a doctor and medically treating his unsuspecting

3 victims. To convince victims that he was an actual doctor, the Defendant hung forged

4 certifications in his office, openly referred to himself as a doctor, and created a fake Doctoral
5 diploma conferred by organization of his own creation. The Defendant even went so far as to
6
wear a white lab coat while in his office to complete the subterfuge. The Defendant further
7
claimed to some of the victims that he was a Navy SEAL, had worked as a Doctor in
8
Afghanistan, was a federal agent, and was currently employed at the Mayo Clinic. The Mayo
9
10 Clinic has been contacted and reports that the Defendant has never been employed there. The

11 Defendants military record is being requested. Investigators have reviewed records from the

12 Arizona Boards of Medicine, Nursing, Physician Assistants, Naturopathic Physicians,

13
Osteopathic Examiners, and Radiation Regulators and have found no record of the Defendant.
14
Dr. Craig as he referred to himself, injected many of his victims with what they
15
believed was Dysport, Botox, and Juvederm to correct various cosmetic defects. During a search
16
warrant executed at the Defendants office, no Dysport, Juvederm, or Botox was found. Several
17
18 victims experienced negative outcomes from these injections including instant bruising,

19 bleeding, and bubbling of the skin at the injection site. One victim complained to the Defendant
20 about bruising and bumps that had formed on his face after injections. In response to the
21
compliant, Dr. Craig treated the condition by applying a household vacuum to the victims
22
face.
23
At least one victim was provided pre-filled hypodermic syringes by the Defendant and
24
25 instructed to take them home and inject himself. This particular victim was also instructed to

26 2
 save the used needles and return them to the office for unspecified safety reasons. The
1
2 syringes are being analyzed to determine what was actually supplied by the Defendant. Further,

3 the Defendant administered laser treatments on several victims at least one of whom experienced

4 burns from the laser.

5 Since the indictment in this case was unsealed, approximately 20 additional potential
6
victims have contacted law enforcement.
7
The Defendant has prior felony convictions in Arizona and Nevada. Those cases
8
stemmed from his involvement in an illegal marijuana dispensary. Notably, the Defendant was
9
10 discharged from his Arizona probation in that case on 12/17/2014. It appears Dr. Craig

11 immediately thereafter embarked on this new criminal enterprise.

12 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT

13
The Arizona Constitution directs judicial officers to consider the three purposes for
14
setting bail and release conditions: (1) assuring the appearance of the accused, (2) protecting
15
against the intimidation of witnesses, and (3) protecting the safety of the victim, any other
16
17 person, or the community. When determining the conditions of release or the amount of bail, the

18 court must consider the constitutional purposes for bail as well as the factors described in A.R.S.

19 13-3967(B):
20
The views of the victim, the nature and circumstances of the offense
21 charged, whether the accused has a prior arrest or conviction for a
serious felony, evidence that the accused poses a danger to others in
22 the community, the weight of evidence against the accused, the
accuseds family ties, employment, financial resources, character and
23 mental condition, the results of any drug test submitted to the court,
whether the accused is using any substance if its possession or use is
24
illegal. . ., the length of residence in the community, the accuseds
25 record of arrests and convictions, and the accuseds record of

26 3
 appearance at court proceedings or of flight to avoid prosecution or
1 failure to appear at court proceedings.
2
Here, the State opposes the requested modification of release as the existing bond is
3
appropriate. Defendant is charged multiple felonies including one Class 2 Felony. Given the
4
Defendant has two historical prior felony convictions, a trial conviction would result in a
5
mandatory prison sentence with a presumptive term of 15.75 years. As such, should the
6
7 Defendant be released, he has a strong incentive to flee. Further, the Defendant has already

8 contacted one victim in an apparent intimidation tactic. The evidence in this case shows the
9 Defendants willingness to lie and manipulate to further his own goals and thereby evidences his
10
danger to the community.
11
A. Modification of release conditions should not be granted due to the
12 substantial amount of evidence corroborating Defendants criminal guilt
13
The evidence supporting the charges against the Defendant is strong. Numerous victims
14
have come forward and continue to come forward with independent but consistent stories
15
16 regarding the Defendants misrepresentations and treatments. His office was filled with fake

17 documents and medical paraphernalia. Given the strength of the States case and the mandatory

18 sentencing provisions, the Defendant has a strong incentive to flee should he be released from
19 custody and therefore should not benefit from a reduction of bond.
20
B. Modification of release agreement should not be made due to the Defendants
21 willingness to contact and intimidate victims.
22
23 One victim spoke on camera with a local news network about his experience with Dr.

24 Craig. After the networked aired that interview, the Defendant called the victim on the telephone

25 asking if he had fun on television and then hung up. This call could be interpreted as an attempt
26 4
 to intimidate the victim from further disclosures.
1
III. CONCLUSION
2
3 The present allegations, combined with the Defendants prior convictions, show that he is

4 either unable or unwilling to work legitimately. Immediately after his probation was terminated

5 from his last criminal enterprise, the Defendant started this new scam. The allegations in this
6 case evidence the Defendants willingness to manipulate, lie, and mislead purely for his own
7
financial gain. He abused the inherent trust that society affords physicians and in so doing,
8
disregarded the safety of the community and the wellbeing of his would-be patients.
9
For the foregoing reasons, the State requests that Defendants motion be denied. The
10
11 nature of the charges plus the weight of the substantial evidence against Defendant warrant the

12 denial of Defendants request for modification of release conditions.

13 Respectfully submitted this 4th day of April, 2017.

14
15 MARK BRNOVICH
ATTORNEY GENERAL
16
/s/ Adam J Schwartz
17 Adam J Schwartz
Assistant Attorney General
18
19
20 ORIGINAL of the foregoing e-filed
this 4th day of April, 2017, with:
21
Clerk of the Court
22 Maricopa County Superior Court
175 W. Madison Street
23 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
24 COPY of the foregoing delivered via
e-file/emailed this 4th day of April, 2017, to:
25
26 5
 Honorable Barbara Spencer
1 Commissioner of the Superior Court
Central Court Building
2 201 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
3
Garrett L. Smith
4 18 E. University Dr.
Ste. 202
5 Mesa AZ, 85201
Garrett@glscriminallaw.com
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 6