Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Burton v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC., 558 P.2d 992.

26 citing documents.

State v. Campo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
the record must contain evidence that the probationer violated a condition of probation upon which to base the burden.” (“[R]ecent decisions of this court and a constitutional amendment on the subject of restitution have called the holding of Burton into question.”); but see A.R.S.
State v. Rocco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rocco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶30 The superior court has wide discretion to modify or revoke the terms of probation, but a “reasonable basis” must exist to do so because “those terms and conditions are fixed pending an event which constitutes a reasonable basis to change them.”
State v. Turner 372 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Turner 372 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
("Upon a finding that Defendant has violated his probation, the court may 'modify or add to' the conditions of probation."); (court may "modify or revoke the term of probation").
Kaleta v. Hon. bernstein/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kaleta v. Hon. bernstein/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
1(a); (accepting jurisdiction and holding the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by modifying probation to include restitution not previously ordered because “[r]estitution or non-restitution was decided at the time of sentencing and nothing new—no new event—was [later] alleged or
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman, Jr. 324 P.3d 851 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman, Jr. 324 P.3d 851 Ariz. 2014
See, (finding appeal untimely because defendant filed more than one year “after he was sentenced on the charge”); (citing Rule 26.16 and noting that the sentence “is final and appealable at the time of its ‘pronouncement’ by the court”); (finding appeal untimely when more than twenty days elapsed since defendant’s sentencing date).
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
We therefore find compelling support in our law for the conclusion that “[e]ither route, sentence or suspended sentence and probation, is final and appealable at the time of its ‘pronouncement’ by the court.”
State v. Quintana 987 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Quintana 987 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Korzuch 920 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1996
State v. Contreras 885 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Contreras 885 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
in support of his claims.
Nieuwenhuis v. Kelly 795 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Nieuwenhuis v. Kelly 795 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
and Green v. Superior Court, supra.
State v. Rutherford 744 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Rutherford 744 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
§ 13-901(C) (Laws 1982, ch. 177, § 2); Rule 27.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure
State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
In Re the Appeal in Pinal County, Juvenile Action No. J-169 639 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
In Re the Appeal in Pinal County, Juvenile Action No. J-169 639 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Gessner 626 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Gessner 626 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Appellant could have appealed from this condi *489 tion when it was pronounced by the court, , or appellant could have requested modification or clarification of the condition by a request under rule 27.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.