Here’s the narrative the Orem court record tells if you read it straight through and strip away everyone’s spin.
It starts with two separate electronic-communication-harassment charges against Greer, both Class B misdemeanors. One was tied to December 15, 2019, and the other to January 14, 2020. The case was filed in Orem Justice Court in late January 2020. By March 2020, Greer had counsel, had entered an appearance, and the case was moving on the normal misdemeanor track before Judge Reed Parkin.
In June 2020, the case looked like it was going to resolve softly. Greer entered a no-contest plea on one count, the second count was dismissed, and the court put the remaining count into a plea in abeyance. The conditions were not trivial. He had to obey all laws, keep the court updated on his address, pay fines and fees, and, most importantly, have no contact with the victim. The court set a twelve-month abeyance period. In ordinary English, that means the court was willing to pause final judgment and give him a chance to stay out of trouble and satisfy conditions instead of taking the full conviction route right away.
That soft resolution did not hold. Almost immediately, there was litigation over the plea in abeyance itself. A motion to reconsider was filed, the court granted reconsideration, and the judge set the matter back for further hearing. At the July 20, 2020 hearing, all parties appeared by video, the victim made a statement, defense counsel responded, and the judge set aside the plea in abeyance. In plain English, whatever had been worked out in June unraveled after the court heard more from the victim side and reconsidered the deal. The case was no longer on the path toward quiet dismissal after successful compliance. It was back on track for an actual disposition.
Then, on September 16, 2020, the case hardened into a conviction and sentence. Charge 1 was entered as guilty and charge 2 was dismissed without prejudice. The sentencing minute entry says Greer was convicted of electronic communication harassment, a Class B misdemeanor, and sentenced to 180 days in jail, with all 180 days suspended. Financially, the court imposed a fine structure that left $500 due, plus surcharge and interest. The court also entered a sentencing protective order, then an amended sentencing protective order, both on the same day. The sentencing terms were not just “pay money and go home.” The court placed him on eighteen months of probation, required that he obey all laws, required him to obtain a mental-health evaluation or screening, complete any recommended counseling or treatment, report to a treatment agency within 48 hours, show proof of completion within 90 days, and get fingerprinted. The court also ordered a psychosexual evaluation, but stayed that particular requirement at that time. Read as a story, the court was saying this was serious enough to justify a real conviction, a protective order, supervised probation, and mandated evaluation and treatment, while still suspending jail.
After sentencing, the case shifted into compliance mode. The docket shows a series of payments through late 2020 and 2021, which means Greer was paying down the fine. It also shows filings from behavioral-health and counseling providers. Then, in February 2022, the court checked the statewide record, found no further violations, but still noticed a problem with proof of completed treatment and set a review hearing to address noncompliance on that narrow point. By April and June 2022, additional proof of counseling and assessment materials had been filed, there was a continued review hearing, and on June 16, 2022, the judge terminated probation successfully. That is important narratively because it means Greer ultimately got through probation and treatment compliance well enough for the court to close out supervision as a success, not as a violation case or a probation revocation.
Only after that did the case get softened on paper. In late July 2022, Greer himself filed a Rule 402 reduction motion. In August 2022, Judge Parkin signed the order on that motion, and on August 17, 2022 the docket reflects that Charge 1 was amended down to a Class C misdemeanor. Then the case was closed. So the true arc of the record is not “this was always tiny” and it is not “this was some terrifying felony-type case.” It is that the case began with two harassment counts, one count was dismissed early, one count first went into plea in abeyance, that lenient resolution was revoked after further proceedings, Greer ended up with a real Class B misdemeanor conviction, a sentencing protective order, suspended jail, probation, mental-health and counseling conditions, and then, after he paid, completed treatment-related obligations, and finished probation successfully, he later won a reduction of that conviction to a Class C misdemeanor.
So if you want the cleanest lay narrative, it is this. The record shows an underlying harassment case serious enough that the court did not let it disappear, did not leave it only as a plea in abeyance, and did impose a conviction plus protective-order and treatment conditions. But it also shows Greer eventually completed probation successfully and later got the conviction reduced. That is why both sides can truthfully grab part of the story. The defense is not inventing the fact that there was a real harassment case with a protective order and court-ordered treatment conditions. Greer is not inventing the fact that the final paper result was later reduced to a Class C misdemeanor after successful completion. The full record is the longer path in between.
