Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tatlow, 290 P.3d 228.

46 citing documents.

Arellano v. Nunez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Arellano v. Nunez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 15 (App. 2012) (“The state must prove a defendant violated a term of probation by a preponderance of the evidence.”).
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Burress Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Burress Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s finding.” –40 ¶ 15 (App. 2012).
State v. Howell Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Howell Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McSmith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McSmith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“To revoke a defendant’s probation, [i]t is enough for the trial court to have a reason to believe that the individual is violating the conditions of his probation or engaging in criminal practices[.]” ¶ 15 (App. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Hughes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hughes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
2 STATE v. HUGHES Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶4 Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible error, Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), viewing the “evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court’s findings,” -40, ¶ 15 (App. 2012).
State v. Fronczak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fronczak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
DISCUSSION ¶4 Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible error, Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), viewing the “evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court’s findings,” -40, ¶15 (App. 2012).
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-40, ¶ 15, -34 (App. 2012).
State v. Zarra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Zarra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Settle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Settle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to affirming, –40, ¶ 15 (App. 2012), a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Settle violated Condition 9.
State v. McGhee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McGhee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McGhee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McGhee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mattison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mattison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parsons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parsons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s finding.” - 40, ¶ 15 (App. 2012).
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 15, (State must prove willful probation violation by preponderance of evidence).
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s finding.” - 40, ¶ 15, -34 (App. 2012).
State v. Greathouse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Greathouse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The superior court’s determination that a defendant violated a term of probation will not be reversed unless the determination is “arbitrary and unsupported by any theory of the evidence.” ¶ 15, (citation omitted).
State v. Coven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Coven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We will not reverse a trial court’s determination that a defendant violated a term of probation unless the trial court’s finding is “arbitrary and unsupported by any theory of the evidence.” -40, ¶ 15, -34 (App. 2012) ( ).
State v. Alcocer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alcocer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DISCUSSION ¶11 We will not disturb the trial court’s finding that a defendant violated probation unless the finding “is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” ¶ 15, (