Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fuentes, 549 P.2d 224.

61 citing documents.

Neko Anthony Wilson v. Hon. higgins/state 491 P.3d 389 Ariz. 2021
Neko Anthony Wilson v. Hon. higgins/state 491 P.3d 389 Ariz. 2021
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
imposition of sentence must be suspended in order to place a person on probation.” (citation omitted)); –47 (1976) (probation treated as a sentence for the purpose of calculating the time to appeal), aff’d and adopted
State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
V (“No person shall be subject for the same offen[s]e to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”); ¶ 14 (App. 1998) (citation omitted); (“Double jeopardy principles do not proscribe successive or multiple facets of an otherwise constitutionally acceptable punishment scheme adopted by a state as punishment to be imposed as the result of any one particular conviction.”).
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
ee, (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
P. 26.1 cmt.; -47 , -27 , approved
State of Arizona v. John George Ponsart Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. John George Ponsart Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(finding full statutory sentencing range available after revocation of probation absent indication stipulated sentencing range in plea agreement applied to post-revocation sentence).
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(“[B]oth the imposition of probation and the subsequent imprisonment after revocation constitute punishment flowing from the same offense.”); see generally Calik; , (mandatory period of incarceration as condition of p
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(“[B]oth the imposition of probation and the subsequent imprisonment after revocation constitute punishment flowing from the same offense.”); see generally Calik; cf. State v. Gandara, 174 Ariz. 105, 107, (mandatory period of incarceration as condition of
State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(“Double jeopardy principles do not proscribe successive or multiple facets of an otherwise constitutionally acceptable punishment scheme adopted by a state as punishment to be imposed as the result of any one particular conviction.”), aff'd, , (approvi
State v. Contreras 885 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
approved and adopted, , State v. Tritle, 15 Ariz.App.
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
State v. Jones 625 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Jones 625 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Seip 623 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Seip 623 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Brodie 618 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Brodie 618 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Williams 593 P.2d 896 Ariz. 1979
State v. Williams 593 P.2d 896 Ariz. 1979
The Court of Appeals, , , approved and adopted, , was faced with a similar situation.
State v. Velazquez 593 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Velazquez 593 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
This is not a , aff'd and adopted, , where we held that time spent in the county jail as a condition of probation did not have to be credited against a prison sentence ultimately imposed when the probation was revoked.
State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
While “probation” for certain purposes has been excluded from the definition of “sentence” we believe it is nevertheless clear that probation is a form of punishment, , , , aff’d , (adopts opinion of Ct.App.), and we will view probation in that sense for purposes of application of the ex post facto provisions of the United States and Arizona Constitutions.
State v. Timpson 581 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Timpson 581 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court
State v. Risher 574 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1978
State v. Risher 574 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1978
*589 , majority opinion adopted by this court in , a case involving Rule 31.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., which requires notice of appeal to be filed within 20 days “after the entry of judgment and sentence,” held for purposes of Rule 31.3, that the term
State v. Layman 573 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Layman 573 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Rodriguez 569 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1977
State v. Rowe 569 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1977
State v. Rodriguez 569 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1977
affirming , we noted that probationary jail time is not legally synonymous with other presentence incarceration.
State v. Rowe 569 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1977
Credit for time served as a condition of probation, and the time served credited by the sentencing judge against such probation, were both resolved contrary to appellant’s , aff’d
State v. Montgomery 566 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1977
State v. Montgomery 566 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1977
The conditions imposed may include incarceration in the county jail for a specified period not to exceed one year, or a fine not exceeding the amount of fine authorized for the offense.” Probation is a form of punishment, , approved , and the court may require that a defendant comply with numerous conditions of probation when, in the opinion of the court, such conditions aid in the rehabilitation process or prove a reasonable alternative to incarceration as punishment for the crim
State v. Risher 574 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Risher 574 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
However, , majority opinion of the Court of Appeals adopted by Arizona Supreme Court in , holding that probation is a “sentence”.
State v. Rios 562 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977